If there is no Itailian player, who would decide which side they join?? The game was play balanced for them to be on the allied side from the start.
Historically they were neutral for the first 10 months of the war, so perhaps it would not be unreasonable to treat Italy like the U.S. as being neutral for turn one.
Kim
@The:
you forgot declaring war on Turkey and busting tanks thru to Egypt…
I’ve done that! Took the whole mid-east and Egypt and with the NO’s was making tons of $$$!
Kim
Razor,
I see no reason to be condescending and rude towards Larry about the map. His record on game designing is excellent. In fact when anomalies in game mechanics, game balance and other rules issues come up with his games, he and Krieg have accepted constructive criticsm and suggestions to make the game better as this thread has done.
You may not like the map, but as Von said, that is NOT going to change. So if you problems with what is proposed or have better ideas lets hear them, but lets not berate the designers who are trying to listen and make improvements.
Kim
@WILD:
I also think that powers like the US & UK that don’t have many (any) territories on the continent, it would get them trapped quite often w/o being able to retreat to a friendly land that has your units in it. Keep in mind that this will also slightly weaken the UK front lines too, keeping an inf or two in reserve for an escape route. In these contested territories 1-2 units can make a big difference.
Plus it really doesn’t make sense that you aren’t given the option to retreat to a friendly territory when you already have units there
Bill,
I do like the new rule proposal, but I’m still miffed that on the western front especially that the French have different rules for retreating then their UK and US allies fighting in the same territory. Clearly the allies fighting in France were partners through thick and thin and I see no reason to have to have even a single unit in the same territory the French can retreat to for them to be allowed to retreat or they are trapped. Still makes no sense.
I like the new rule proposal, but I would add that you can treat friendly “Original owned territories” of your alliance the same as if it was yours. This way the US and UK fighting in France could withdraw exactly the same as their allies, the French.
In occupied territories, having at least one unit makes sense.
I would keep it simple. Choose on of these two options:
Free Movement: a player may move units in a contested territory into any adjacent contested (at his turns start–by his or an allied power) territory or any adjacent friendly territory.
No Movement: a player may not move units from a contested territory. Units in a contested territory are pinned until one side wins.
Actually the No Movement might be the best solution. WWI was a static war, units were not pulled out of a combat sector on one end of the front and shuffled over to another sector hundreds of miles away (the scale of the territories) just to get an advantge where the line was weaker.
The war WAS a meat grinder. This rule is more consistant with the WWII games in that the defender NEVER gets any choice to withdraw from an attack and must keep fighting till it is destroyed or the attacker calls it off. If the attacker calls it off and you don’t let them move out of the contested area, you are still commited to that sector of the battlefield and will fight as the defender.
This way only new troops coming to the front have a choice as to where the get deployed, and if you what to form a new defensive line in the next area back, you start building it up while your troops at the fron hang on as long as they can.
That rule would be simple and solves all the problems about “can openers” etc. The only caveat I would add is to allow Fighters to leave the territory, and they could go anywhere.
Neeed to think more about how that changes the game, but it would end the nonsense.
Kim
The least invasive change would be “Land units that begin the turn in contested territories can only be moved to territories that were controlled by your power or already contained units belonging to your power at the beginning of your turn.” If it becomes necessary, that would be the most likely change. However, we are not likely to open that up unless it’s really necessary. Only actual game results will tell.
That’ll work. If the situation comes up, we’ll probably just go with it and let you know what happened. Actually that verbiage is even more clear than what you currently in the rules and also solves the problem of your allies being able to withdraw while you can’t. Good job.
Kim
Let me know when this becomes a real problem rather than a theoretical one, and we may do something to address it.
Unfortunately it’s not theoretical when you’re explaining the rules to your gaming group and they’re balking that the BEF can’t fall back towards Paris like they historically did. Clearly this is a valid game tactic needed to consolidate against the advancing Germans.
Ok, if you allow units to go from contested to friendly controlled territory I can see your “can opener” problem in Russia. I.E., Germany and Russia contest Poland. Austria on her turn takes total control of the Ukraine. If Russia cannot contest it on her turn, then Germany could 'walk" around the Russian contesting force in Poland moving all but one infantry into Ukraine with their Austrian allies. This clearly is a problem as now Germany is on the gates of Moscow and the Russian force in Poland that was holding the front cannot move back in time to stop the CP from capturing their capital. Ok, I get that.
The answer is to still allow units in contested areas to withdraw to friendly tt’s controlled by your allies provided such a move does not move you closer to the nearest enemy Capital.
Under this clarification, the move in Russia would not be allowed since the Germans would be advancing closer to Moscow, and the move by the UK to fall back towards Paris would be allowed since they are not moving closer to Berlin.
Both of these situations are logical now, and make sense. The qualifier is to eliminate the “can opener” move to get units closer to an enemy capital without restricting units making a strategic withdraw through friendly controlled areas. Now the other example of the stranded Austrians in Russia is also solved as they could withdraw back through German controlled territories from a contested tt to get back home.
My gaming buddies could go with that.
Kim
2.� This one I think is clear but I just think its a little strange but I guess there is a reason for it (can opners?)� Austria has a number of units in a russian territory (lets say Russia) that is contested with Russian and Germans.� All the surrounding territories are controlled by Germany.� There is no legal way for Austria to move any units out of the territory as there are no other contested territories (with or without Austrians) surrounding it or any territories controlled by Austria (even though there are a number of friendly territories.
Correct.
So Krieg let me get this straight, if lets say Belgium is contested by the Germans with both the French and UK, Lorraine is totally controlled by the Germans, and Picardy has French and UK units only in it, that on Frances turn seeing a German army in Lorraine could withdraw her forces from Belgium to Picardy (going from contested TT to a TT under French control), BUT on the UK turn, she COULD NOT withdraw her forces back with her allies from the contested TT to Picardy (with other UK forces and her allies that just withdrew) since you cannot go from a contested to a non-contested TT you do not control??
This just makes no sense at all, and quite frankly looks absurd no matter what kind of “can opener†problems you may have encountered in Russia. You can’t fall back with your allies to their TT, yet by rule if the Germans also contested Picardy in this situation than they could fall back?? There simply is no logic to this that can be explained in any rational manner no matter what rules issue you may have had elsewhere.
If the French can fall back to prepare to defend Paris from the oncoming Germans, then their Allies should be able to fall back with them to on their immediate following turn. You may have had a reason for this rule, but it looks so ridicules for the UK to not be able to fall back with her allies that I’m afraid your going to loose me and probably others from this game with this kind of absurdity.
Sorry.
Kim
The ‘Turkish Gambitâ€.
If your playing face to face try this as your opponent won’t have as much time to study all the possibilities.
G1, buy a major factory. Take out the British fleet as you normally would. Non-combat move the big stack of infantry in Germany towards Romania, then place factory in Romania.
G2, build a fleet of one carrier, destroyer and around 5 or 6 transports. Finish off the UK navy. Non-combat move the western forces to the east, the big infantry stack to Romania. Place fleet in the Black Sea.
The Russians are now threatened from Karelia all the way to the Caucasus (and by-pass Besserabia!) forcing them to extend their defense lines.
G3, Now the twist. Keep the peace with Russia and instead invade Turkey! Also invade Sweden. If you use your air force well you can capture with very minimal loss.
Now you have the central position to everything. You threaten Russia from the south by land and sea. You threaten the entire Middle East (including Saudi Arabia) and the valuable NO’s as well. You now can threaten Egypt from land and sea, and your fleet can move into the Mediterranean Sea. You can also threaten India too!
G4, now attack Russia by seizing the Caucasus’ and overrun the Middle East. Once you accomplish this you can bring in over 20 IPC’s of revenue from the Mid-East to fund your war effort and to counter the Allies gaining support from the other strict neutrals. Now it’s a race to win before the Allies can make an effective counter, but you have many options that they must try to counter and they can’t cover every threat.
This will require well coordinated support from Italy and Japan, but can give the Allies fits.
Kim
We just finished 3 games with all the new changes. Even with the changes the Axis won all three. The first game we even forgot all the Japanese ships in SZ 45 (carrier, fighter, tranny and destroyer) yet the Axis still won with little problem.
Russia simply cannot stop, or even reasonably delay the Germans. Every game the UK fleet is crushed, Egypt always falls and the Americans are always too late to make any difference. Only one game was reasonably close with the British losing a near run attack on the German transport fleet just prior to the invasion of London. Once that failed, Germany took London and the Americans failed in their bid to recapture.
The additional troops for the allies make it about one or more turns longer for the Axis to tilt the balance beyond the point of no return, but we don’t see enough to make a difference.
We consider our group to be experienced A&A players going back to the original game, but we are perplexed as to any sound allied strategy that yields a fair fight.
Our take is the extra Russian infantry still does not allow the Russians any viable counter attack against the Germans. With only a single tank, you can ill afford to send it into an attack only to see it killed and the lone fighter provides the only offense more than a 1 to hit from the infantry. We discussed the possibility of Russia having another fighter to give them more offensive options.
One strange anomaly is the Russo-Japanese Non-aggression pact when the Americans hit the Japanese fleet off Japan then landed bombers in Siberia. The Japanese had forces in Manchuria to strike at them, yet since Russia had not fallen were not allowed to go after the Americans in Russian territory. Somehow this did not seem right, so we allowed Japan to attack non-Russian forces in their territory.
Right know our group thinks the Russians need either a fighter or tank (even if less infantry) to give them some offensive counter attack capability. Otherwise the Russians can only sit back and wait to get destroyed.
Kim
Artillery units in A&A represent 105mm/155mm mobil gun types that fire high explosive rounds indirect fire. These type guns are of no value against ships. They have no armor piercing rounds, and even the largest of these would not penatrate the armor of a battleship.
If you want to represent costal defense system you would need a unique new unit. Something like the blockhouse units in A&A D-Day would be the equivalent.
In reality though only Atlantic Wall had a significant amount of these type of guns that could actually make any difference (yet they did no damage to the invading fleet), small islands in the pacific had nothing that could hurt ships.
Kim
Due to their excellent escort abilities, they created AA gun platforms to shoot down planes so they cant get to the Carriers.
I’m sure Admiral Yamamoto will be glad to know that. :-o
Kim
@Imperious:
1. Because Cruisers are the fastest ships and have the greatest range. They can travel long distance without refueling.
Facts not in evidence.
USN Wichita class had a speed of 33 knots and an operational range of 12,000 mi. Iowa class Battleships had a speed of 33 knots also and a range of 14,000 miles.
German Hipper class had speed of 32 knots and operational range of only 7,000 miles while the Bismarck had a speed of 30 knots but with a range of 8,500 mi.
Japanese Tone class did show good speed at 35 knots, but only 8,000 mi operational range. Yamato class battleship had a speed of 30 knots and range of 8,000 mi.
By comparison of speed the Japanese Yugmo class Destroyer had a speed of 35.5 knots and the US Fletcher class Destroyer a speed of 36.5 knots. Operational range was limited to about 5,000 miles though.
Also by comparison US Essex class carriers had a speed of 32.7 knots and an operational range of 20,000 miles!
Cruisers by operational range do not deserve any advantage over Battleships or Carriers; they had no more or less. While their tactical speed was in the 32 to 35 knot range, it was certainly not any advantage in a strategical sense compared to 30 to 33 knot battleships and carriers.
And while cruisers were well armed for AA role, most battleships had as many or more AA guns.
There is no logic for cruisers moving faster on a strategic level.
Kim
Rule changes are now official as of 2/11/12 per Larry’s update on his website.
Kim
There are no French units in FIC because there is no France in just the Pacific 1940 game.
Kim
Test
Rolls: 1@2 2@3; Total Hits: 11@2: (6)2@3: (2, 5)