Posts made by gsh34

Hey Robbie,

I am intimately familiar with the “Belfay” (by-the-way, there is no need to change the spelling in order to protect anyone.  If Belfay doesn’t want the move of leaving a naked capital open named after himself, he needs to stop doing it.)  I lived in the Twin Cities when Revised came out and played weekly games with him and Bunnell.  Man, when he is on your team, it is your responsibility to do a “Belfay” check every round.  He’s a big boy, it is perfectly legitimate to take advantage of an opponents naked capital if they leave it within range of take over.

Also, Mr. Belfay, if you are reading this, no harm or foul is meant by discussing your trademark move.  At least you are not a Vikings fan like Mr. Bunnell is.

Go Bears!!!
GSH34

That is an absolutely crazy looking board.  It looks like there are over 1000 units on the board including the chips.  How many hours did the game last before calling it?

Guys,

Thanks for trying this out.  Calvin, did you also have Japan shuttling troops across northern China so that a constant supply of Japanese troops would be arriving at J5?  Would six to eight Japanese troops a turn even matter against Russia in this scenario?  Did you see any thing that showed promise about this strategy?  Do you think this could be something possible to do after a successful Sealion so the transports are utilized?

I wish I knew how to view your map download.  Can you explain that please?

@Larry:

**I see a slightly reinforced UK in both the Eur40 game and the Global game.  I’d like to keep the sealion attack possible – if you want those kinds of kicks, but I’d also like to give the UK player a more interesting experience.  I’m looking for a new UK setup that will make Sealion less tempting for Germany. At the same time I want to maintain that exciting possibility.  I’m thinking of adding another French infantry and perhaps another Brit infantry to the UK’s setup. I’m also considering allowing a very special rule uniquely for Great Britain. British Government in exile. The UK’s capital is automatically transferred to Canada should the UK fall to a Sealion.  The Germans would still gain the British unspent IPCs but the British player can remain in the game directing his remaining forces.  I also want to pay a tribute to the ANZAC forces by adding another ANZAC infantry to Egypt.  I also want to add another to New South Wales.

Sincerely,
Larry Harris
Creator of Axis & Allies**

I think this change is one that needs to be play tested very thoroughly before we are gung-ho about implementing this.

If the UK is going to get two more infantry, that makes Sealion statistically much harder to do.  It is very costly to do even now because of the very heavy naval build that it requires Germany to do.  By allowing UK Europe to effectively remain in the game by collecting income and build in Canada, you have vastly reduced the incentive for Germany to even do Sealion in the first place!  A large part of the incentive for the current Sealion attack is that you deprive the Allies of the UK Europe money for a number of rounds.  Without that incentive, would an even harder Sealion attack be worth it?

@Funcioneta:

Don’t worry, somebody will try still ignore Japan  :-D

I love it because it is true!!!

@deadbunny:

In the scenario that’s being talked about here Germany places little to no ground units for two turns (CV and factory, then 8 transports etc). I feel that this may be deciding factor in the long run. With average dice rolls it may work but all it takes is a few rounds of good defensive hits to throw it off.

I can’t imagine a simple IPM build for the Axis would win.  They start the game about 60-70 ipc behind the Allies in income even after taking France.  The two German complexes are 5-6 rounds from Russia.  The supply lines are too long to take out Russia with a simple IPM.  In order for a credible Sealion or Nenetsia threat, they need to build a carrier and transports.  Five or six transports does nothing for a credible Sealion.

@deadbunny:

IPM?

Another example of why this game will never be won, except in lucky situations, by gimmick moves that either “win” the game in 3-5 rounds or in the first round. Its called Infantry Push Mechanic and it has won every game that its used in. Read the boards of some of the other games to find out the details.

Even if you take Moscow for one turn,unlikely but possible, you have no supply line that is worth it to back it up. Your victory is only won for a round and then Germany is a hollow tiger, and so is Japan. You have hamstrung both major Axis powers to do this. No Atlantic wall, no reactionary force, no win. Not with sane allied builds and a strategic outlook.

I just played at a Convention and my team (of course we have played extensively together) would have won based on IPM, the constant supply of fodder without the loss of high powered units. The other team conceded, but it was a given with time considering their waste of high powered units…

deadbunny,

I don’t doubt IPM.  I’ve played hundreds of FTF games (mostly Revised and 2nd edition) and I can attest to it’s value.

From reading here and my limited number of games, America likes to go 100% in the Atlantic.  This crushes the Euro-Axis.  The role of the Nenetsia gambit in conjuncture with Japan is to either kill Russia or reduce it so much that it removes one front to worry about in Europe.  If it works, the Euro-Axis can fully concentrate on the UK and US while Japan’s ground forces arrive by round 5 and beyond to mop up what is left of Russia.  If the Europe board is kept a two front war with a massive stack of Russians to deal with along with 82+ ipc of units from the US, the Euro-Axis are toast.

The goal is to eliminate one front of the war.

@special:

gsh34,  wouldn’t it be good for this strat to have Italy buy/move some tanks/mechs to Romania?

This shows more commitment in the southern region, distracting more from a northern offensive. And they can still be a modest can-opener threat in the South.

I have no problem with this.  I don’t play FTF games as often as many here on the boards, so I need to try this out in a real game and see how it goes.

Some people say, so what to Nenetsia?   Russia builds all inf/art/mech and keeps them in range of Moscow.  Well, if Russia does that, it relieves pressure on the German/Russian front and they can still do Sealion without Russia being ready to beat down their door.  All that for the price of one Japanese air base to threaten Russia?  Seems like a good deal to me if it causes them to go out of position.

People, there is a lot more to this Nenetsia threat than what I’ve posted so far.  It doesn’t just have to result in the killing of Moscow.  This thing has really been doing laps in my mind and I continue to come up with more variations on this.

NENETSIA THREAT 2.1

Round 1
G1
Purchase: Carrier and minor complex (save 2 ipc)
Combat:  Same as before
Placement: Carrier goes into SZ 112 and minor complex into Romania
Collect 68 + 2 saved = 70 ipc

J1
Take Chahar as strong as possible and put all planes in range of it as before.

I1
Do what ever.

Round 2.
G2
Purchase 10 transports.
Noncombat:  make sure you can load 16 units into sz 112 on G3 and six units into sz  100 on G3.
Placement:  seven transports go to sz 112 and three go to sz 100.

J2
Build airbase in Chahar and land all 20 planes there.

I3
Anything

Round 3
G3
Sealion not likely possible, but you could do Nenetsia or take Leningrad.
From SZ 100 land all six units into Caucus

J3
Russia is most likely worried about its capital and concentrating on the sixteen units in Nenetsia.  Therefore, fly five spaces and land all Japanese planes in CAUCUS!

I3
Anything.

Round 4 (this is where the Allied players eyes pop at what possibilities the Axis have)
G4
Build airbase in Caucus

J4
Fly five spaces and land all twenty planes in W. Germany.  edit:  From the Caucus, the Japanese stack of planes could also clear out a good chunk of the Mediterranean.  SZ 95-100 can be cleared out and then land in N. Italy, S. Italy, Tobruk, or Libya.

A few thoughts on this one.  If Germany builds a carrier on G1, wouldn’t most Allied players be concerned about Sealion and commit the US 100% to the Atlantic?  I would think they would so they are prepared to retake London if Sealion does occur.  Does America and the UK build a fleet big enough to survive twenty Japanese planes from W. Germany on J5???  Does moving the 16 Geman ground unit to Nenetsia on G3 mean they die because it isn’t enough.  NO.  G4 you could transport them to Scotland.  Russia round 4 is out of position because on the Nenetsia drop.  G5 pick up another 16 ground units to assult London with a combined 32 ground units possible.  If the Japanese clear the Atlantic around the UK and Scotland, Germany still has the transports to do a 1-2 drop (Scotland and then the UK the following round) to capture the UK.

I hear everyone complain about the US dumping all their IPCs into the Atlantic and Japan not being able to affect much change on the US.  Well, try this variation on Nenetsia.

@SgtBlitz:

No, NOT easily stopped.  Even IF the 3 DDs somehow succeeded in blocking off Nenetsia and stopping the Italian FIGs from blasting a way through, Germany could just be like:  “Aw, screw this noise, I’m going to Britain after all!” and attempt a proper Sealion anyway.  You’ve just spent 24 IPCs that could of been used on the Eastern Front doing much more useful things.

That was my entire point about suggesting this strategy.  Sealion is ALWAYS an option.  If Russia is soooooooooooooo concerned about Germany pulling this off because it bought a carrier and two transports on G1, go ahead and buy the destroyers.  Germany can still do a G3/G4 Sealion and then have fewer Russian ground units to deal with afterwards.  This was never designed to be a strategy that you are monolithically locked into doing.  It is something I wanted other players to be aware of in case Russia gets too big in its britches and pulls too many units away from Moscow or bought too many high priced units and thus have a unit deficiency.

@SalothSar:

@gsh34:

@SalothSar:

To stop this masterplan all the Russians have to do is put naval units in Sz 125,126 & 112…. 3 seperate targets for that huge Italian airforce. An experienced USSR player would see the Japanese airbase is meant for them and move/buy forces accordingly. No Japanese player would ever build an airbase in Northern China to attack Chinese units or British in India.

True, but in order to do this, Russia would need to buy, at a minimum three destroyers, since a lone enemy sub can be ignored.  24 ipc is not an inconsequential amount of money for Russia.  Since this has the potential of a G3 move for Germany, Russia would have to do the purchase on R1 so that they could move them into blocking position on R2.  What Russian player is going to do a three destroyer build on R1?  Also, Japan doesn’t even buy the air base until J2 which would be way too late for Russia to respond with a naval build.  R2 already happened!!!  Germany goes next which means G3 happens and there isn’t anything Russia can do in response to the Japanese air field/air force movement.

I like the first word in your reply, “TRUE” so you agree you masterplan can be easily stopped!

No, it is not easily stopped.  To do the naval blocks that you suggest with the Russian naval units, they would have to purchase at minimum three destroyers on R1.  What Russian player would spend 24 ipc on R1 for three destroyers? If they wait until R2 to respond, it is too late and they can’t stop it!!!  Now, they can move there ground units around to have a counter attack into Nenetsia as some have suggested, but if those ground units are in Archangel or another adjacent territory to Nenetsia, then they aren’t at the western front waiting for Germany!

@SalothSar:

To stop this masterplan all the Russians have to do is put naval units in Sz 125,126 & 112…. 3 seperate targets for that huge Italian airforce. An experienced USSR player would see the Japanese airbase is meant for them and move/buy forces accordingly. No Japanese player would ever build an airbase in Northern China to attack Chinese units or British in India.

True, but in order to do this, Russia would need to buy, at a minimum three destroyers, since a lone enemy sub can be ignored.  24 ipc is not an inconsequential amount of money for Russia.  Since this has the potential of a G3 move for Germany, Russia would have to do the purchase on R1 so that they could move them into blocking position on R2.  What Russian player is going to do a three destroyer build on R1?  Also, Japan doesn’t even buy the air base until J2 which would be way too late for Russia to respond with a naval build.  R2 already happened!!!  Germany goes next which means G3 happens and there isn’t anything Russia can do in response to the Japanese air field/air force movement.

@qwertyuiop:

MY GOD PEOPLE, YOU ARE ALL SO OBSESSED WITH BALANCE, MAYBE THE GAME BALANCE ISN’T THE ISSUE,……MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP PLAYING IT SO MUCH AND GET OUT AND GET OUTSIDE MORE OFTEN.

Whoa!  Who let this person in?  :-D :-D :-D

qwertyuiop is right about getting outside though.  Maybe tomorrow instead of sitting in my faculty lounge to check out AA.org I will sit outside and drink tea whilst using my laptop and wi-fi connection to peruse this fine forum.  :-D

Sorry about the improper citation.  I saw this idea over at Larry’s site from allweneedislove and put it up over here because I thought it was an excellent idea that needs to be play tested.  I have added you into the subject line larrymarx. His is a very slight variation on what you had originally posted so I kept his name also.  Is this satisfactory enough?

@MaherC:

I think it is driving at the right idea, but at a backwards way.

An axis win on half the board isn’t a “global” game.

Splitting the US’s IPCs between the West and East coasts would be a better solution to me.

Ok, I see what you are saying now.  I agree that it is kind of a backwards way to think about it.  Germany and Italy are toast but the Axis win because Japan goes wild.

To me, the non-historical aspect of winning this way takes a back seat to sound game play for Global.  It forces the US to play in both theaters yet the choice of how to do that is completely up to player.  It does not force the US to have a rigid split of income as does the UK.  They reason for the UK split is because the respective capitals are so far apart.  The east and west coast of America are not so far apart that supplies couldn’t easily be transferred between the two.

@MaherC:

Using the Alpha as a base sounds like a recipe for disaster.   If the Alpha is for Pac40, then why not use the OOB setup for the G40 “beta” ?

My guess would be that Larry wants continuity between the Pacific and Global games.  That is why alpha setup is for both.

@MaherC:

Splits the Global game into 2 half games.   It does force the US to play both boards, but we’re backing into the real solution of splitting the US’s IPCs like the UK.

MaherC,

I don’t understand your post completely.  Is it bad if for the game if the US has to split its resources?  This would allow the Allied players to best decide how to split the US resources.  And with the victory changes, split them they must.  ANWILs suggestion is the simplest solution to the problem of balance.  No fighting over NO or setup changes.

There have been multiple threads that deal with the problem of the Global game being imbalanced because the US goes 100% in Europe and creams the Euro-Axis.  Whether is a real problem or just a perceived one because not enough good Axis counters to the US going 100% in Europe have been developed remains to be figured out with certainty.

However, if changes must be made, go with allweneedislove’s (ANWIL) change.  Instead of changing the setup or NOs, alter the victory city conditions.

If the Axis can hold seven of the eight VCs on the Pacific board, they win the game regardless of what is happening in Europe.

If the Axis have eight of the eleven VCs on the Europe board, they win regardless of what is happening in the Pacific.

Specifically, if the US goes 100% into Europe, it is a breeze for Japan to grab seven of eight Pacific VCs.  If the US is 100% in the Pacific, Germany does Sealion and the Euro-Axis can cruise to capture eight of eleven VCs on the Europe board.

By altering the victory city conditions, the US must balance resources into both theaters.  This is the modification that I think needs to be tested for Global balance if one must be made.

I just want to thank ANWIL for his brilliance in thinking this simplistic change up.  Bravo!!

@kungfujew:

Everything I was saying was in a scenario of america going all for europe, and if the allies are making 20 with anzac, 20 with india and 0 with america and you can’t steamroll the uk/anzac/china then you’re doing something wrong.  The game is balanced for 3 allies and one axis power.  Take an ally, not to mention the one making a full half of the income for the whole team, out of the picture and it’s nowhere close to a fair fight.

I agree that the UK, Anzac, and China can be defeated easily with the US going 100% in Europe. I just don’t think it can be done fast enough for the Japanese to turn enough power onto America before the US has affected the outcome of the European theater.  Calcutta in particular can turtle up pretty hard and it takes until round five, if not usually round six, before they go down.

I know you said that Japan won’t even need any of its starting forces to combat the US at this point, but this is hard for me to believe.  For six ipc the US can buy two infantry for defense with 4 pips.  To equal that, Japan has to buy a transport, one infantry and one artillery.  That costs 14 ipc for the same attack value.  Considering Japan only has one major factory vs the three that America has, I just don’t see how this is a winning strategy for the Axis unless it is only meant to pull them away from Europe for 1-3 rounds.  After that, America should have it’s shores sufficiently defended/recaptured.  Also, even if Japan completely convoy raids the west coast of America for 14 ipc, the US would be making 66 ipc (assuming Japan has the Philippines) to cream the European Axis with.

I could always be wrong, but from my few games so far, what you are telling me just doesn’t seem to make sense.

@kungfujew:

The issue with Japan doing all that is in the allocation of forces.  Think about it from a pac 40 point of view.  Japan can easily overpower both India and anzac in the first 5 turns…

Are we talking about the OOB setup or Alpha?  Since we know the OOB setup will be changed, my group is using the Alpha setup.  I don’t know how Japan does this with the Alpha setup.  If you can take out India and Anzac by round 5 with the Alpha setup, wow, I need to think much harder about what I am doing as Japan.

@kungfujew:

If you hold off attacking the western allies for 2-4 turns then the US can’t be in a position to attack until the start of turn 4 or 5.  By the end of turn three china will be dead and you can position yourself in the carolines and/or sz 36 to launch a devistating blow to either ally with ALL your consolidated forces.

Ok, I’m following you so far….

@kungfujew:

Without needing to spend money on fleets to defend against the US, factories and transports and lots of ground troops can be purchased.  A well placed air or naval base will let you attack at any weak point in overwhelming force, and, unlike in a Pac 40 game, the uk gets no +10 ipc bonus for the islands and land territories.  With a 3-5 turn head start on the US in the pacific, even if they start to build up, you don’t need any of your starting forces to combat them.  Just think about how far you’d get in a pac 40 game without the US spending in the pacific and what you’d do to make as much headway as fast as possible and you’ll see what I’m talking about. 5-7 turns is more than long enough to do irreperable damage to the allies cause in the pacific, and then turn to africa/the west coast and russia.

I never played Pac40 alone so everything in the 1940 rule set was new to me.  What you say here will take me more time to digest and think about.

One thing I will say is that building new industrial complexes is sooo slow.  You build it on round x.  Round x+1 you get to place units in it.  It’s round x+2 before you get to use them.  If the US sees this, they can easily build a wall of ground units for either defense or a counter attack in advance of your landing.  This is just the thinking in my mind.