Posts made by KimRYoung

I do not know how you guys would die, but if all the ships around me got sunk and there was no escape… I would ram what I can and hope for the best.

Which is why you would never be given command of a ship  :lol:

Garg had it right that transports used to be used as ablative armor for the fleet. This is why Larry changed the rules. Any concept that the TT has intrinsic support vessels went out with the addition of cruisers and destroyers. Protecting transports is part of their responsibility.

This debate really needs to go one of two directions: 1. a House Rule that would at least have popular use, or 2. a viable change that might actually have a chance to find its way into future additions of the game (this would have to be a subtle change to have any chance with Larry).

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

Kim

About your first comment, it seems that between giving TT@1 and the OOB rule, you prefer the second. However, your historical oriented comment let us think that instead of auto-kill TT, it would have been better to let a space for escaping maneuver for TT.

About Larry and WoTC, I think we all agree with you.

But initial question stay, how far can we go to revert back to Classics TT in Global 1940?
Der Kuenstler is asking a good question and help to think outside the box.

Given the choice between transports defending @ 1, or no defense at all, I prefer the later. Played way to many games of original A&A where large squadrons of transports killed lots of capital ships. That was absurd. Having no defense is in fact correct, but still hate when a lone bomber or sub catches a half dozen transports and sinks them all. In reality some would escape but I do understand that I as a player can prevent this by not allowing my transport fleet to be unprotected.

A SIMPLE rule I might by into, one short sentence, anything more than that just keep it as it is.

Kim

Well said. This is exactly what I would do, and man would this hurt Germany a ton. Also now the french navy is saved. Talk about a massive allied bid. You saved either 111, or 110 and cost Germany a ton of units on T1.

Totally Agree.

A completly better approach would be to make Global 1939, that way you can have the Germans forced to invade Poland, Denmark and Norway, and the French would have their chance to actually attack the Germans instead of sitting on her butt like she really did (the Sitzkrieg!).

Kim

It is plausible that some of US Marines TT for examples decide, for the sake of the many, to ram into a battleship or a cruiser.

Say WHAT?!

This is neither plausible nor even possible, as tactical doctrine would force the ships commander to get as far away from a capital ship as fast as possible. Exactly how many hits from an 8" to 15" shell do you even think a transport could take trying such a manuever? (let alone secondary armament).

Sorry this whole thread has devolved into a complete bunch of “House Rules” ideas and should be moved there. There is zero chance Larry will be changing back the rules for how transports work at this juncture in any of the game series.  Nice try though.

Kim

@Krieghund:

Not to hijack this thread, but we’re thinking about changing the Russian Revolution rule to allow the Central Powers to decline the armistice if they want to.  That would keep Russia from “gaming” the rule.  Of course, there is only one revolution, so accepting it is a one-time opportunity.

Excellent Idea !!

Two Thumbs UP !!

Kim

Played 16 turns for a CP victory in our first game.

Kim

@elevenjerk:

If they can’t move at all, it really seems to defeat the purpose of letting them start before Germany.

It would allow them to place additional 5 inf and 1 art in France so that germany would have to bring a bit more to take it.

Then its just a 19 point bid, you can do that now if you’re playing with bidding.

Kim

If anyone has any of the missing numbers I would appreciate it.

The Swiss had an army of around 250,000 men just prior to the start of the war, and had an additional 200,000 men in support. Both France and Germany considered the Swiss to have a good professional army.

So getting back to the origianl post, at only 1 IPC, raising 2 units to defend Switzerland (considering the quality of the Swiss troops as well as the terrain), it may not be a fair representation, and sure is no deterent.

Also, if we consider the German planned invasion of WWII (Operation Tannebaum) that originaly called for 21 divisions to invade, but was reduced to 11 divisions due to the fact there were insufficent routes of invasion, the idea for limiting the number of troops that could be sent into Switzerland also makes sense.

Even in World War One, the Swiss initally prepared for an invasion (mobilizing 220,000 men to the border), so it seems making the area impassable would not be correct. The question is, should the Swiss defence be stronger then 2 units and/or have some move restrictions, or just leave it as it is OOB and if one side or the other gains an advantage so be it?

Kim

And on a side note. I like your idea of movement restriction Kim! Because the larger mobilization protects the CP’s early on, but it really screws France later in the game when Austria is making decent money and can afford to send large armies into Burgundy. Allowing just one unit to pass at any one time feels a litte too restrictive though. I’d make it five or six. That way invading Switzerland is still a viable tactic, but its impact wouldn’t be quite so dramatic.

There have been several ideas that all do what I think needs to happen, and that is making Switzerland less likely to be overrun easier then Holland. Whatever is done, the rule needs to be pretty simple. For sure, the single IPC is not any issue here, it is only the logistics and strategic advantage taking the position in the game may give one side or the other.

Historically there where reasons for armies not attacking through Switzerland, so so sort of representation needs to acount for this, otherwise its a highway for invasion.

Which of these would you prefer:
1. No movement (make impassable)
2. Restricted movement (unit limit)
3. Defensive bonus (additional units)

My choice would be #2, but I think any of these choices would be better then the current situation.

Kim

Or do it with the same mechanic as in Global 1940, at least that would be consistant.

Kim

@ghr2:

Actually, the game begins right after dunkirk, after the british evacuated most of their forces.  At that point, germany easily overwhelmed france.

Well that pretty much makes it no way France can be neutral.

Kim

@variance:

If france starts the game neutral for a turn, Germany could still steamroll it even if they put all available units in Paris.  In terms of historical reality, the setup as it is right now is ridiculous.  Just imagine Germany in Fall 1940 sweeping France, sinking most of the royal navy, invading East Poland, Baltic States, Bessarabia and Yugoslavia, and at the same time Japan taking Malaya, Borneo, Hong Kong and the Philippines.  That’s what is happening when some people do a G1 and J1 combo, which may or may not be an efficient way to win the game but it is certainly possible to do it.

That’s just it. France is NOT neutral, she declared war in 1939. That’s why there are British troops on French soil when the game starts.

I suggest that if anyone wants France to start the game first to please play some games and report how they go, we would all be interested in the results.

Kim

@TheVenocWarlord:

@KimRYoung:

In Global 1940 Switzerland is impassible, where every other neutral can be attacked and get money from. Why didn’t they let you attack it there?

Uhh, Switzerland is passible. It raises 6 infrantry and doesn’t give you a single point of IPC.

Oops, confused with the other version, my bad.

Kim

@Suvorov:

First of all, A&A doesn’t make any allowance for terrain.

Yes they do, they have impassible terrain and they have control restrictions for moving through straits.

As for whether any nation could have, would have, or should have gone through Switzerland, the historical facts are that in two world wars they were right in the middle of it and NO ONE attacked them for whatever reason.

To overrun Switzerland every game with ease by whoever just doest seem right to me. The Sahara isn’t really impassible, just damn difficult to get thorough.

In Global 1940 Switzerland is impassible, where every other neutral can be attacked and get money from. Why didn’t they let you attack it there?

Kim

@Tavenier:

Or maybe allow only infantry to pass. Terrain is especially difficult for heavy guns to move trough or planes to land.

You could still shove 20 plus infantry through, that’s enough.

Kim

One problem with having France go first (among others) is the time line would be incorrect. Fance was not neutral having declared war in 1939 after the invasion of Poland.

the game actually begins on the eve of the invasion of France. Demmark and Norway where captured by Germany in April of 1940 and are already in German hands at teh start of the game. The UK starts with control of Iceland, where infact Britain invaded Iceland the same day Germany invaded France.

Having France go first and you would have to back-up the game timeline from where it was designed to start. Also, having the Germans roll over the French right off the bat is the way Larry wanted this game to work. Changing that design concept makes this a very different game.

Kim

Best solution:

Play A&A 1914 with the alliance rules from the game Diplomacy!

You get the best of both games.

Kim

I don’t believe Switzerland should be impassible, but certainly the terrain there made it virtually impossible to move large-scale forces through. Having the Swiss have more units than the other neutrals is a deterrent, but not really correct.

I believe a good representation of the Swiss situation would be:

Switzerland restricted terrain: Because of the mountainous terrain, no power may move more than a single unit into and out of Switzerland in their turn.

The effects of this rule would be obvious. First, whoever attacks into Switzerland violating their neutrality would send a single infantry (as required by rules) to fight the two defending troops. Therefore you could not even capture it in a single move. On your next turn you could send another unit in, or your allies on their turn could also send in a unit.

Eventually you might capture the territory, but even then you could only move a single unit OUT of Switzerland to either attack or join forces fighting in contested territories. Yes you could move one unit in and one unit out on your turn, but that’s it!

This would really represent moving troops through the mountain passes. Face it; Germany had no problem going through neutral Belgium (and Holland was also targeted) to get at the French. If moving troops through Switzerland wasn’t so difficult, they would likely have tried to out flank the French trench lines through there as well.

So now the territory in effect becomes semi-impassible. Its possible to move into, but way more difficult then the other open territories, and powers with large armies will not be able to just roll right over them.

Opinions?

Kim

One of the things I really like is that for now, there is no obvious strategy. Some good ideas and suggestions, but stil lots of uncharted territory for both sides.

One thing we’ve talked about (though not tried) is buying German subs, hitting the Canadian fleet while moving the home subs out to sea. If the UK moves out to hit them with her fleet, you have plenty of strength to hit them in open waters.

The treat is to advance through the Atlantic, move your cruisers out and look for a surprise, Pearl Harbor style, strike on the US fleet, especially if she has built transports and no other naval support.

Just an idea for now.

Kim

BJ,

Landing in Holland gives you a little $$, and use it as your road to the front. If they want to land their fine, you get artillery bombardment on them, and you can reinforce it quicker as if the French move up they are really extending their lines.

UK would have to commit a lot of resources to make such an invasion get a foothold, and that $$ not going to India.

Not saying its a game winner or anything, but I would rather get there first in strength rather then let the UK land with no German resistance.

Kim