Posts made by KimRYoung

I posted this on Larry’s site Monday with little response:

Strategic Movement

"During the move phase any land and naval units may move up to double their normal move rate provided they move entirely through Friendly territories or sea zones "

Comments: Kills 2 birds with one stone. This is a simple and clean compromise. The extra movement is for strategic redeployment only, you cannot move into a combat situation. Subs may move through hostile sea zones at double per their normal special ability. Cruisers are now a little more valuable, being able to go 6 sea zones and get in position to threaten shipping lanes or provide quicker support.

Land units can get to the front a little quicker, and can go from one front to another much quicker, but it’s not a game breaker from the current rules. They cannot move into a combat situation with this move, but will be able to reinforce areas much quicker. These rules do not apply to Fighters (Naval and Land units only).

This is not as radical a change as what Larry proposed, but it does give those that complained about the slowness of getting units around without being abusive. The rule covers both land and sea in a single simple descriptive sentence with little complexity.

Lets hear what you think.

Kim

If this is a problem, maybe restrict SRM to a maximum of 10 units?

Or a stacking limit on all tts, 20 units

There never has been any stacking limit for any of the World A&A games (ie, there is in D-Day) so I can’t see this. As for a limit on how many units might be able to move, that is worth considering. I can see a problem with creating a giant roving “ameba” that devours everything in its path and then moves across the galaxy (oops, game board) to kill something else.

10 unit limit might work. Still not sold on any of this in Africa though.

Kim

Today I played a game with my friend with the SMR. We altered the movement of ships by +1 if you leave from a friendly port. �

I like this. It is a well tested rule from Global 1940 that works well, the Naval Ports are already on the map board, and still keeps Crusiers somewhat valuable (they would be worthless if everthing moves 5 SZs).

the 5 movement for ships is a bit much. I wouldn’t mind a double move in a non-combat situation, but the +1 you used is a very idea and has precident from other versions of the game that have already proven to work well.

The Strategic Movement still needs some clarity though as the total implications are not yet obvious.

Kim

Mal,

I’m no cheerleader. I have had criticism of this game as well. Flash is not wrong in his view and has a point, it’s just that if he really wants to have an influence on some real changes, then denigrating Larry is probably not going to sit well and any good ideas he has will likely get dismissed out of hand just because of the hyperbole attached to it.

Larry was very open to revising Global 40 and many people had a say in multiple rules revisions on his site. My point is if Flash would turn down the rhetoric I think Larry would be more open to constructive criticism and some possible solutions. He would be more valuable with a seat at the table then railing from the sidlines.

Kim

@Flashman:

Umm, good enough to get me banned from HGD… :-o

@rjpeters70:

Very good…

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Bitchin’ and scoffing at the designer is not part of the solution.

Kim

@Flashman:

I’m beginning to think the best use of the Canadian transport is in Africa. After all the UK can quite easily build what it needs at home.

The Canadian transport can immediately dump a couple of units in FWA, which should be enough to clear the continent of Germans a turn or two earlier than usual, then it can ship the surviving Africans to wherever they’re most needed.

The Canadian Transport dies turn one

Kim

@Imperious:

UK:
Dreadnought 22
Pre-Dreadnought 40
Battle-cruiser  9
Armored Cruiser  34
Protected Cruiser  52
Other Cruiser  35
Destroyer  221
Submarine  73

Germany:
Dreadnought  15
Pre-Dreadnought  22
Battle-cruiser  5
Armored Cruiser  7
Protected Cruiser  17
Other Cruiser  16
Destroyer  90
Submarine  31

62 to 37

You need to include battlecruisers in with the total of “battleships” as these are just fast dreadnaughts.  A pre-dreadnaught is a floating tin can that is as obsolete as a bi-plane was in WWII.

Kim

@almashir:

"Britain did not have twice as many Dreadnaughts as Germany.

Kim"

Hi, Kim,

Yes, that’s true. It was more like 3-2 in August 1914 (34-21).  But they had almost twice as many pre-Dreadnaught battleships (41-22).  It all depends on how much you want to weigh pre-DN vs. post-DN for combat power.  I arbitrarily assumed a pre-DN to be about 60% as effective as a post-DN.

England pulled out most all her pre-dreads from first line service (though they did get used in the med). At Jutland, the Germans did bring 6 PD’s, but there expected value was so low they were called “5 minute ships” because that’s what they considered there life expectancy in a stand up fight.

A PD usually only had 4 main guns compared to the 10-12 guns on a Dread. At best, considering there very slow speed and inferior armor (and useless secondary guns) I would only represent them as a “battleship” at about 20-25% (and that’s a gimme).

If you figure at that, the ratio would be more like 8 to 5 or 9 to 5, which would be around a 3.5 to 2 ratio.

For play balance, you need to make that 3 to 2.

I would put UK at 3, Germany at 2, and everyone else at 0-1 (considering some US ships in the Pacific). For sure the French DO NOT have more then the Germans!

Kim

@oztea:

What about this?

Austria-Hungary
•   Sea Zone 18: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Russian Empire
•   Sea Zone 12: 1 Battleship, 1 Sub, 1 Transport
•   Sea Zone 21: 1 Cruiser, 1 Submarine
Germany
•   Sea Zone 5: 1 Submarine
•   Sea Zone 7: 2 Submarines
•   Sea Zone 10: 2 Battleships, 2 Cruisers, 1 Transport
•   Sea Zone 11: 1 Submarine
•   Sea Zone 24:  1 Cruiser
France
•   Sea Zone 15: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
•   Sea Zone 16: 1 Submarine, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
British Empire
•   Sea Zone 2: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
•   Sea Zone 9: 2 Battleships, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
•   Sea Zone 19: 1 Battleship, , 1 Transport
•   Sea Zone 29: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
•   Sea Zone 4: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser
•   Sea Zone 8: 1 Transport
Ottoman Empire
•   Sea Zone 20: 1 Cruiser, 1 Submarine
Italy
•   Sea Zone 17: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
United States
•   Sea Zone 1: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser

Turkey has a sub and England has none? I don’t think so. the Turks had only a single sub the entire war. Britain had 74 subs when the war started. England HAS to have some subs represented.

The ratio of UK Dreadnaughts to Germans should be 3:2

Kim

@almashir:

I was thinking something along the lines of this.  Note that I cut the number of German subs in half (They had less than 30 when the war started).  I also put one of their cruisers off the coast of Africa (This represents ships they had there plus the West Indies, as well as the Far East Squadron, which historically made its way to the Atlantic to cause mischief).  I also gave the Germans a transport, because it seems implausible they wouldn’t have one.  I did not do likewise for the US, since they would not yet have paid the cost of diverting civlian ships to military use.  I also subtracted 1 British cruiser and half the US Navy to represent units assigned to the Pacific.  Does anyone see any obvious game breakers here?

Austria-Hungary
• Sea Zone 18: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Russian Empire
• Sea Zone 12: 1 Battleship
• Sea Zone 21: 1 Cruiser
Germany
• Sea Zone 5: 1 Submarine
• Sea Zone 7: 1 Submarine
• Sea Zone 10: 3 Battleships, 2 Cruisers, 1 Transport
• Sea Zone 24:  1 Cruiser
France
• Sea Zone 15: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
• Sea Zone 16: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 2 Transports
British Empire
• Sea Zone 2: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
• Sea Zone 9: 4 Battleships, 3 Cruisers, 1 Transport
• Sea Zone 19: 2 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
• Sea Zone 29: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Ottoman Empire
• Sea Zone 20: 1 Cruiser
Italy
• Sea Zone 17: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
United States
• Sea Zone 1: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser

Britain did not have twice as many Dreadnaughts as Germany.

Kim

@Krieghund:

Let’s go ahead and call it official.

Good Call Krieg

Kim

@KimRYoung
The overwhelming majority of UK Submarines were obsolete, unfit for high seas operations. Did you ever see pictures of their older models? They could hardly sail a mile away from the shore! grin

I don’t disagree. But giving them at least one would be nominal. I see a bigger issue in the strength of the French fleet for historical strength, would be curious as to why Larry gave them 2 battleships and Germany one. The Allies certainly do not need another battleship in the Med.

Germany should have the second strongest fleet at the start second only to England. The French should have one less battleship and the Germans one more.

Kim

@Flashman:

I should have said give Germany a sub in SZ18. I’m not certain British subs were up to much at this time, compared to the German models.

The Germans were shipping U-boats by rail to Austria, and they assembled them in port. The subs were manned by Austrians though. As for British subs, some of them had to be doing something when war starts, they didn’t need to start building them from scratch.

Kim

It seems something of a consensus is forming regarding naval setup.

Is this for play balance or historical reasons? I’m not convinced that there is enough supporting evidence yet to suggest the game is significantly biased to one side or the other and as such it is too early to make any changes solely on that.

For “historical” reasons, I tend to agree that France has too large a navy, and for sure no way should she have 2 battleships while the Germans have only one. It should be more like England 3, Germany 2 and everyone else no more (if any) than one.

As for giving Austria a sub, she started the war with 7, Germany started with 20, But the British had 74 Subs!! So if you want “historical” then the UK has got to start with some subs.

Italy being neutral makes historical sense, though don’t know how it would effect play balance.

German cruisers (Goeben and Breslau) were actually in Messina in early August, so if Italy is neutral, they should start in SZ 19 if you want to go that route. Making Turkey neutral would allow the Russians to move into the Med, the Turks would never have allowed that even if neutral.

Can’t change the map, sorry.

Kim

@Flashman:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; however prejudiced and misguided.

No it is not. The Russian Revolution had no connection to the war anymore, this was a totally separate conflict and when the Revolution occurs, the Russians are no longer concerned with what the outcome is for the remaining powers.

Put this in your house rules if that’s your preference, but the rest of us have no use for adding additional units, control markers, an additional power to the turn sequence. Larry isn’t going to even consider this idea. Kreigs latest modifier to having the CP accept the terms of the revolution effect or decline its effects pretty much makes this optional rule workable if you chose to play with it.

Kim

No Bid

More fun to play the Central Powers anyway.

Kim

@Krieghund:

How about this for a house rule idea: leave the transport rules exactly as they are, except transports in excess of combat units can be taken as casualties.  This allows combat units to “screen” transports, but unscreened transports can be lost.

Example:
A fleet containing a carrier, 2 fighters, a destroyer, and 5 transports is attacked.  The first hit could be taken on the carrier, damaging it.  The next hit may be taken on a transport, as there are 5 transports but only 4 combat units.  However, the following hit must be taken on a combat unit, as the number of transports and combat units is now equal.  The remaining order of loss could be destroyer, transport, carrier, transport, fighter, transport, fighter, transport.

Transports still get used as a cheap soak off, when in reality attacking units would go for capital ships. Transports should get the hell out of a combat zone ASAP since the only thing they want is to survive!

Kim

@Baron:

@KimRYoung:

Right now looks like everyone is in the phase of throwing spaghetti at the wall.
Kim

What does this mean? I never eard of this expression.

Properly cooked spaghetti is cooked “al dente” which is easily determined be actually throwing it against a wall, and if it sticks to the wall it is done! Hence the phrase. Throw it against the wall, and if it sticks, you’re good!

Kim

And while you’re thinking of ideas, consider the following about American amphibious cargo ships (originally called Attack Cargo Ships, or AKA):

"Attack cargo ships played a vital role in the Pacific War, where many were attacked by kamikazes and other aircraft, and several were torpedoed, but none were sunk or otherwise destroyed. "

So why are so many sunk so mercilessly in A&A??

Kim

@rjpeters70:

@variance:

Now that I think about it, this might not be such a difficult variant to create because all the setup issues are to be dealt with by the players themselves in the first and second round.�  There would be minimal stuff on the board at the beginning.

Great point.  I’m actually wanting to play this out now.

You do realize that when I proposed this my tongue was planted firmly in me cheek  :-P

Anyway, maybe it does have some merit. Keep in mind that in '39, the Japanese suffered several major defeats in China, and Russia and Japan were fighting along the Manchurian-Mongolian border at Khalkhin Gol, so don’t neglect that theater.

My guess is that for Global 1939, the game starts one additional round earlier. Have at it guys!

Kim