Topics created by knp7765

Thank you very much CWO Marc.

Simply put, if the Allies stood up to Germany before Munich sold-out the Czechs, Germany probably would have had a massive mess on their hands if they had to militarily take Czechoslovakia… people assume a LOT of things, like the Germans were this massive modern mechanized monstrosity that few could stop… this simply was NOT the case in February 1938 when it first cropped up.  Lets just assume, we look at a few things without the assumptions many put on Germany, and look at a lot of the realities if a war broke out before the Sudetenland was turned over to Germany, no Munich happened, and Czechoslovakia stood firm against Germany in 1938.

Czechoslovakia is NOT Poland… this seems obvious, but terrain alone is very much different… instead of flat plains, great for massive panzer formations and flanking units, you have a lot of mountains and rough ground… not exactly ideal for Blitzkrieg warfare…

The Sudetenland defenses were fairly well developed and would have posed a significant challenge… the Czechs had a fairly well-laid-out line of trenches, pillboxes and defenses all around the Sudetenland to defend approaches through rough terrain facing Germany… if these were manned and defended, it would be a tough approach for Germany to deal with under even ideal circumstances and with superior equipment.

The Germans did NOT have a quality advantage over the Czechs, especially in tanks.  In 1938, Germany really only had two types of Panzers in service… the MG-only armed Pz-I… which was barely more than a training vehicle… and the laughable Pz-II… armed with a whopping 20mm cannon… once again… not exactly anything that is going to strike fear in your enemy.  Pz-III’s were still in development… and mass production would not start till 1939… Pz-IVs just weren’t around… on the other hand, the Czech army was well armed with (at the time), a very capable Skoda CKD Lt vz.35 (later known as the Pz-35t, after the Germans got their hands on it)… the Czechs had nearly 300 of them at the time… these tanks were, in-fact, superior to anything the Germans had in 1938… quite a difference from the common misconception that the Germans always had better tanks than their opponents.

The Czech army alone, was well equipped and in a very defensible position, and could have held out far longer than Poland did, given the situations of 1, 2 and 3 listed above… in-fact, its entirely feasible, the Czechs alone may have completely halted an invasion of their country as long as the Allies didn’t give away their border defenses at Munich.  This doesn’t even account for what would have or could have happened if more countries jumped-in to the defense of Czechoslovakia.

I’m in the firm belief, that had Germany militarily invaded Czechoslovakia in-whole before the surrender of territory at Munich, that it would have been a military disaster for Germany… and very possibly the end of the Third Reich, shortly thereafter.

Not to mention the capture of the Persian Gulf oil fields by the axis.

I think I overreacted on the Italian situation. I foresaw UK being able to focus more on Italy in this compared to a normal game, since Britain’s income is centralized due to Halifax, and because it can probably afford to redirect Pacific forces west since USA in the Pacific isn’t as immediate of a threat to Calcutta as Japan was. Additionally, to defend the mobilization of Spain, I moved France’s destroyer by Madagascar to the Mediterranean to block off a Italian T1 transport heading to Gibraltar.
To counterbalance that I made one of Italy’s NO more attainable, upgraded 2 infantry to mechs, gave a free tank and artillery already in Africa, combined the Somalian infantry with the Ethiopians which is almost like giving an extra infantry, gave a free destroyer, and took away an ANZAC infantry from Egypt and a UK AAA from Malta.

But there’s another big factor to consider. Like, uh, I don’t know… USA PLAYING ON THE OTHER TEAM, MAYBE?? ;)

So! I’m changing some of that, and that’s the biggest change of these tweaks here. I acknowledge most of these changes are in favor of the Allies. I now present v1.4, which I intend to be playable as-is and the last of this series of changes, until I play some real games myself or get feedback from you kind or heartless souls. ^_^

v1.3 —> v1.4 changes
-Burma: -1 Infantry, -1 Fighter, +1 Artillery
-switched Cruiser and Battleship in SZ37/SZ39 (this and the Burma changes were actually done a while ago, I just forgot to write them down)
-removed extra tank in Libya, re-separated Somalian infantry, returned Malta AAA
-added to Story (Greenland)
-placed Commonwealth transport in SZ106 (Canada should have SOME sort of Navy, right?)
-removed extra Inf in Slovakia
-changed Eastern Mex standing army to 3 Inf (from 2)
-simplified Commonwealth defense perimeter NO
-modified Commonwealth 1st NO to require Ontario or Quebec (to encourage US player to strike fast and not overwhelm them separately)
-modified UK anti-sub NO to exclude eastern US coast
-fixed Russian lend-lease NO to not penalize Russia for support from allies
-added 2 Inf in Borneo
-added 1 Inf in Hawaii
-fixed a conflicting statement about Bolivia (Bolivia is Pro-Allies)

@knp7765:

If an attack that involves 3 planes goes after a territory with a single AA gun, in normal rules that AA gun would get 3 rolls @ 1 to try and hit those planes. With Low Luck, would you simply roll 1 die @ 3?

Yes, that’s the way to do it: roll 1 die @3. Ruling out abominations as combat results (with rolling dice), that’s the goal of using LL. Win/loose due to strategy, not blessed/jinxed dice.
The downside of LL is that you can exactly calculate what you need. In big battles I don’t see this as a problem. Smaller ones however are stuff for debate. A Yughoslavia strafe can never go ‘wrong’ because Germany rolls too much hits. Russia can safely strafe every area with 6INF that has 2 axis units in it (or 12 if there are 3 axis units, etc.), moving large INFstacks around without risk of actually taking the area.

@knp7765:

Okay, I know this goes against the rules, but it seems to me that your planes stationed on an Airbase or even on an Aircraft Carrier should be able to scramble to defend adjacent territories. Now, planes on a regular territory (no Airbase) could not do this because they are considered “in the field” and would not be available for a quick response (lack of communications, etc.).

Still, doesn’t this seem logical to you guys? That an occupation force would call for air cover from a carrier or air base if counter-attacked?

Here is the HR I can probably use:
An adjacent operational Air Base provides up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
Each carrier can provide 1 plane in an adjacent land territory (Fg or TcB).
An adjacent territory can provide 1 plane (Fg or TcB).

In any situation, keep this limitation:
it is up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB) max which can be scrambled into an adjacent territory under attack.

In addition:
any territory under attack can allow an aerial retreat for 1 single plane (Fg, TcB or StB) or up to 3 planes (Fg, TcB or StB) if there is an operational AB, the range is only 1 territory or SZ move.

Does anyone see some specific drawback to this limited two ways: inward air-support/ outward air retreat?

If the rule is kept within the same limit as the scramble rule in a SZ, players are already taking account of this special air reinforcement, it shouldn’t be difficult to watch it even if it is applied on land territories. What do you think?

@knp7765:

@CWO:

It would have been a nice touch to rename the jail square “in the brig”.

HA! Good one. Another possibility would be “the Stockade”.

And the picture of the “Go To Jail” policeman with the whistle could be replaced by a picture of an M.P. or Shore Patrol guy.

I had a similar idea for my my big variant where that uses some historical and balance modifications. Basically there would be more than just an axis or allies alliance. The game starts in 1919 and carries on into the 21st century and has technological advancement stages and political rules. It has build-up/political rounds and at turn 20 i.e. 1939 the war starts WWII and doesn’t until either the Comitern, Nationalist, or Allied forces lose a super power’s capital. A cold war begins and limited warfare and second build up/political phase begins. The first superpower to make an aggressive action then starts World War III.

Everyone will start out with exactly the same military forces but maintains thier sphere of influence and must choose their alignments and government styles.

The game will be complicated but simple at the same time with most of the luck factor going towards combat.

The US, UK, USSR, Germany, and Japan will be the five major superpowers. The USSR represents all communist aligned powers but may make alliances with either the Axis or Allies. France, Italy and Anzac may ally themselves with any major superpower except Anzac may never go to war against the U.K.

All minors will play a role in the game too with limited but playable forces. Some will literally act as puppet-states to the superpowers.

I would go on further but there are more details im working on and do not want to divert the thread from the original topic. Also my post is just part of a rough draft.

1Bean432,

@1Bean432:

EPIC.

Am curious as to why you have so many rising tokens.

––Because he intended,…and has pre-planned to Rule the World!  :-o :-D :-o

––Truly “epic”,…and no doubt Fun!

“Tall Paul”

If we’re going to continue talking about modern special forces, also list Space Marines, and look up Operation Hot Eagle

Legit.

@knp7765:

That is a good idea about limiting the Japanese Kamikaze use until they are kind of pounded down to a low income. The Kamikaze was a weapon born out of desperation after all.

Yes, and in addition to the pressure of Japan being in such a desperate situation, there was another related factor at play: the more the war progressed, the fewer top-notch pilots Japan had at its disposal.  Japan’s training philosophy prior to the war had produced an elite corps of pilots, which gave Japan an initial advantage but left it in a worsening position as the years went by and their casualties mounted.  The US Navy, by contrast, figured out that training large numbers of competent pilots was a better investment than training a small number of superb ones (especially since the US could produce enough aircraft to take advantage of its abundant pilot supply).  When Japan’s situation became dire enough in late 1944 for it to consider extraordinary measures such as kamikaze tactics, one element which worked in favour of the kamizaze concept was that it required very little pilot training: the pilots basically just had to learn how to take off, how to fly to their targets and how to go into a steep dive.  This kind of rudimentary flight instruction was the opposite of the elite-oriented training philosophy Japan had followed prior to the war, so it would make sense to have a rule saying that Japan can only make kamikaze attacks late in the game once Japan is on the ropes.  Maybe this could even be seen as a kind of tech – a capability which isn’t available at the start of the game, but which becomes available later when certain conditions are met.  With a normal tech, you need to invest money to gain the new capability; in this case, kamikaze attacks (a kind of reverse tech because it reflects a training downdgrade) would become available when Japan’s economic and strategic situation drops below a certain threshold.

Well you aren’t the first player to arrive here having made mistakes with the rules by reading ‘regular’ A&A stuff into them. It is really important in BOTB and GCNL not to read any ‘regular’ A&A rules into the games. Most of the non strategy questions start by correcting a false premise. We had one player moving his attacking units into the hexes he wanted to attack for instance.

Here is a link to the FAQ.

Those are some good ideas. I think to make this game balanced, I do need to make some adjustments. Just giving Italy the Axis NOs and ANZAC the Allied NOs doesn’t quite work. It seemed to be working for a while, but once ANZAC got the upper hand, it just gradually got worse and worse for Italy. I know that happens even in some games of regular A&A, but I don’t think there was any hope of Italy turning things around once ANZAC started getting ahead.
We just finished this game tonight. It took 15 rounds before Italy surrendered. For the first three rounds, Italy really grew and just about closed the gap between them. Rounds 4-8 were somewhat even between the two. If Italy did well on one front, ANZAC was doing well on another front. From Round 9 on, Italy was more and more defensive. ANZAC managed to take Japan and pretty much ruled all the Pacific and Asia within the next 2 rounds. Once all other Italian presence was eliminated, all ANZAC had to do is keep pounding on Europe until something gave way. Between amphibious landings every turn in Western Europe and a flood of tanks, mechs and planes rolling in from Russia, Italy was finding it harder and harder to maintain any kind of border.
For a while, whenever ANZAC would land somewhere in W Europe, Italy had enough to take it back. There were a few sparks of good for Italy, like when they sacrificed most of their European air force to kill the ANZAC fleet outside of England, including a stack of transports. That delayed ANZAC for a couple of rounds, but soon they were making landings again and Italy couldn’t afford a whole new air force to risk against the navy.
While playing the game this way makes each round go somewhat faster, it is pretty hard keeping track of all the different fronts. You literally have attacks going on in every point of the map on some turns. It’s a little easier when Germany is dealing with England and Russia, Italy is dealing with the Med and Japan is dealing with China and the Pacific. Still, it is kind of cool to be able to carry out ALL your ideas in the same turn.

@Imperious:

I prefer this:

Infantry 6
Artillery 3
Mechanized Infantry 3
Tanks 3

Fighter 3
Tactical Bomber 2
Bomber 1

Transport 2
Submarine 2
Destroyer 2
Cruiser 1
Battleship 1
Carrier 1

Trucks 2

TOTAL = 32 pieces set

I really like your numbers IL. This would provide a much better ratio of more common units (infantry, tanks, fighters) to less common units (capital ships, bombers). Even more so than FMG’s current set. For example: With FMG’s sets, you only get 12 tanks per 6 Carriers. With your proposed numbers, you could buy 4 sets, get 12 tanks but only 4 Carriers.

There are a lot of good ideas here that’s for sure. Some, like IL’s ideas are great theme based ideas that real capture the essence of the China theater and others, like Gar’s are great from a game play mechanic point of view. I think any of them would be an improvement to the existing state of affairs for China’s movement restrictions.

@Yavid:

why not let china place there inf. in any original chinese territory even if they don’t control them. if it’s unoccupied then they gain control, if it is occupied then combat insues as soon as the territory is attacked by an allied power or on Japan’s combat phase which ever one comes first.

I like this idea, but it would need to be controlled. Making it so that the Chinese could mobilize new units (maybe 1 or 2 infantry) in any original Chinese territory that is unoccupied might make this better, and again, a great way to represent the guerrilla and partisan warfare that was a major part of the fighting in China during WW2.

@Young:

Chinese units may move into any friendly, hostile, or neutral territory during the combat or non-combat movement phases. However, they may never enter Russian territories for any reason.

I see the thinking here, but I think its entirely to arbitrary, Japan should not have a way to “opt out” of Fighting China. I think having something in place that would want Japan to keep some portion of China under occupation (I would have thought the victory city would have been reason enough but I guess i’m just old fashioned  :| ). Placing a penalty on Japan for doing so by removing China’s movement restrictions is a good idea and giving China the ability to become more of a threat is even better.

Perhaps making it so that once China captures all of its original territories it’s movement restrictions are lifted. This was Japan will want to keep at least one Chinese territories under its control to keep them in check. However, lets up the ante here, if Japan is pushed off the Asian mainland (for sake of argument lets keep it to all non Soviet land territories) China can place an IC in Shanghai which will be their capital for the remainder of the game and can purchase units normally. This way even if China is able to move and attack where ever she wants, Japan still has a chance to push them back before China gains the ability to deliver the knock out blow to Japan.

and just to note, I would have to believe that by the time either of these instances were to happen, the game would be all but over for Japan anyway.

I went lower at 15/23 because after J1 the Chinese lose 4 tt’s normally, and 15/23 just about doubles what happens from there. I think that 18/23 (and is still divisible by 3 for inf BTW) would be fine though, and most likely would work for the game your in now. I feel that they should at the very least should be able to help to liberate India (part of the Burma road, and I believe some Chinese divisions did end up retreating to India) if they have their own affairs in order first (18/23 does that IMO). It’s really what your comfortable with.

Well, I got my FMG Italian units and tried setting up for a game of ALpha+3.  Unfortunately, I’m afraid that I like the FMG pieces a little too well.

Alpha 3 setup Europe 3.JPG
Alpha 3 setup Pacific 3.JPG

I’ll SBR just about whenver possible.  The risk/reward is now in my favor.  So unless I can get more than 3 IPC for using my bomber elsewhere, I’ll use it to SBR (if I can.)

Why:  Average Cost: 2 IPC; Average Damage: 4 IPC, net 2 IPC, if I can get an extra infantry, it’s better for me, otherwise, bombing is a good alternative to parking.

No problem.  8-)

@knp7765:

Hey 12doze12,
Here is a little sample pic I took when I first made some of these roundels.  I was using the smaller image roundels at the time.

Those look really good in the map but they are a bit weird compared to the other nation roundels maybe because of the color