Posts made by Kobu

Cool. I’m tied up today, but I should be able to get everything up tomorrow.

Next version is out, so this is no longer needed.

I’m looking for one-on-one games with the proposed changes to test them out. This will be using ABattleMap No tech. I can play multiple games and have no preference for sides. Please respond here so others looking for games can also find partners.

Rules to be observed are all the changes in both blue and red, along with the probable change of the US NO to 10 instead of 15.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4060

This has been suggested a few times, here and on Larry’s board. I’m all for Vichy rules myself, as long as they are simple.

I think I’d rather play with those changes than the current Alpha+.1. I’m not sure about the airbase add though.

The French fighter is interesting. Holland becomes a riskier place to land planes.

@Frank:

I think 6 victory cities is too easy.  In the game I played yesterday I was allies and I captured Berlin and had reduced Italy to a 6 point country and was going to capture it completely within two turns most, UK defeated them soundly in Africa.  Yet  I was going to lose Hawaii that turn and thus lose my 6th victory city in Pacific.  I split points with US in both sides of the map.  I built over 30 destroyers in the Pacific to help hold off Japan but it would not have been enough.

If the victory conditions remain 6 victory cities in the Pacific I believe most people will find out that the US will have to spend close to 100% of its points in the Pacfic to stop Japan from getting 6 cities.  The problem is if they do that they will lose on the European side of the map.

I think Larry Harris is doing a great job with making adjustments to the game but I think the allies need some boasting up somewhere now.

I should add the two Japanese bombers in there. They can land in the Marshall Islands. That makes it about even for mutual destruction.

@chompers:

There’s nothing the US can buy that can stop the Japs from taking Hawaii turn 3 if they move their starting fleet to Midway J2.  Can’t be blocked, and no amount of US purchases can save it or really even put you in a position to take it back US3 since you can only deploy 3 units per turn directly into the Pacific until at war.

I wouldn’t say nothing. 2 carriers and a battleship turn one. 2 battleships and a bomber turn 2.

Japan starting fleet has 49 pips on attack, 20 hits. US group at Hawaii has 47 pips, 19 hits. Hits taken on Japanese carriers can’t catch planes regardless if they win, US planes can have three carriers blown out from under them as early casualties. Point US. US counterstrike is 2 battleships, 3 bombers should anything be left.

@allweneedislove:

@Kobu:

Try it with the approved setup.

all the games i have been playing have been.

You’ve clearly been playing with the proposed changes to the Med. Apples and oranges and I’ve addressed both.

@Kobu:

@allweneedislove:

@WILD:

I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).

the problem with 7vc is that usa could go 100% resources in europe for the early and mid game. only coming back into the pacific once japan has 6vcs then just defend hawaii.

i am not sure that the victory condition of 6vcs in the pacific immediately wins the game needs to be changed. i still need to try more games. but if it does need to be changed i think that the victory condition of 6vcs held for a round would probably be better.

@WILD:

I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.

sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.

Try it with the approved setup. If all your opponent does is huddle, it’s probably easy. With good purchases and movement on the part of the UK, it’s very hard to set up. With the Med changes, Sealion becomes much easier.

I should say I had poor luck on my G1 attacks leaving destroyers sitting on the map and my subs at the bottom of the Atlantic. That plus the scramble rule made it very prohibitive to make the actual naval attack before the assault. The long way around could have been blocked by a single destroyer.

Regardless, it would be nice I think to have some extra starting inf on England so the UK has a few choices when they see that transport buy.

@allweneedislove:

@WILD:

I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).

the problem with 7vc is that usa could go 100% resources in europe for the early and mid game. only coming back into the pacific once japan has 6vcs then just defend hawaii.

i am not sure that the victory condition of 6vcs in the pacific immediately wins the game needs to be changed. i still need to try more games. but if it does need to be changed i think that the victory condition of 6vcs held for a round would probably be better.

@WILD:

I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.

sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.

Try it with the approved setup. If all your opponent does is huddle, it’s probably easy. With good purchases and movement on the part of the UK, it’s very hard to set up. With the Med changes, Sealion becomes much easier.

I’m figuring out the odds for that attack and it’s pretty close assuming the US moves and builds correctly on turn 2. I’m not sure it’s a big problem other than the Axis player being obnoxious and trying it every game for a dicey victory.

The rule I suggested still seems to take care of it and would make sense. FDR would have no trouble declaring war seeing a Japanese armada parked outside Alaska.

So, you were thinking of a turn 3 attack on the US from Alaska? I suppose it’s actually doable, but I think there’s an easy fix.

Japan cannot enter sea zones around North America or Hawaii without declaring war. That would either let the US block with ships, or jump up to war time production.

I reviewed your game Calvin. It does seem that with that Med change, it is pretty hard for the UK to fend off Sealion just as before. It doesn’t seem like a desirable change.

You did mop up Italy pretty well as I expected. If the Pacific hadn’t collapsed, you may have come out even. But is the game fun with Italy crippled and the UK wiped out, as could happen nearly every game? I don’t believe so.

This could perhaps be rectified by just giving the UK more infantry stationed to begin with. It’s not like they’d be doing much but defending, so I don’t think it would hurt Germany too much.

The new Med set up is nice because it gives UK different options and allows for an actual Taranto raid. That is, if fewer eggs were put into the SZ 97 basket. Pump up the forces a bit in Tobruk too and maybe this will work.

On the Pacific side, I think the mistake was abandoning Hawaii. Even with 3 production, I believe the US has enough to to set up a counter strike and basically end Japan if they are going for both Hawaii and Queensland simultaneously.

The UK is much harder to take with the new scramble rules. Germany just getting enough ships to ensure a landing makes things harder. Navy and air buys are much easier for the UK to do to counter instead of buying nothing but stacks of infantry. I’ve been looking at the odds in a game I’m playing against Infrastructure and each step as Germany prepares is dicey. I nearly had a “safe” attack planned out one round but a couple dice rolls that didn’t go my way ensured that he would have made the amphibious assault a very difficult proposition.

What is going on in the Pacific that you are losing it so easily?

There’s a reason the Med changes weren’t moved to page 1. As Larry said, those changes are completely untested. Attacks on SZ 97 and Tobruk favor UK to the point where Italy will be crippled worse than in the OOB game. I’ve haven’t seen any playtesting being done on the forums or battle reports that would indicate a need for this change.

Is he just summarizing the longer posts? I’m not sure what are his thoughts…this one sounds like turning all bombers into something like the old heavies.

“The order of the SBR should be:
Air battle escorts/Bombers vs interceptors
All involved aircraft are rolled for, looking for either 1/1/1(I’m becoming partial to these number. Remove casualties. Escorts & interceptors are now out of the battle.
AA gun fire
Surviving bombers are fired at. AA gun hits w/1s
Bombing run.
Roll 1 die for each bomber. Total rolled is the number of damage markers placed under each target (ICs, AB, NB)
(Here’s where it becomes somewhat different)
Bombing damage must be cleared from the target. failure to do so will shut down the facility and/or IC. Damage markers are removed as usual, during the Phase 1 Purchase & Repair units. Here’s the kicker… Each repair cost 2 IPCs instead of 1. Scoring 3 hits cost 6 IPCs to repair. How about if repairs cost 3 IPC each? 3 hits cost 9 IPCs to repair. I think this makes SBRs more effective and more attractive to conduct. The impact on the game will be interesting to observe as well. I feel that more money will be drained from everyone income. Less income means less purchases and less purchases may mean shorter games.”

Where did your “where are we now” part come from? It’s way off from what Larry has posted.

You’ll have to outline your game for us to get any meaning out of it.

Many of the changes favor the Allies, so I don’t see suddenly saying it favors the Axis now. Italy probably won’t be immediately crushed now and the US is a bit of a slower start, but with with Japan’s expansion made more difficult and the UK probably keeping more of it’s starting ships, the Allies have plenty of advantages they didn’t have in the original game.

Neutrality is taken care of in Alpha+:

4. If the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power. In other words, war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the USSR on the Pacific map only, and war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.

Otherwise, I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. If the UK has units in Russia, then they get destroyed, Russia can still collect its NO? Well, yeah.

If you want a rationale, just think of the sea and land zone as one geographic area that makes this kind of defense possible with airbases. Separate land areas are for whatever reason, separate.

@gsh34:

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?

I think the map is pretty self-explanatory. How are you planning on streaming in that many Japanese troops when your planes aren’t available for dealing with China and UK? With no pressure on Russia’s western front, I don’t think they have to worry about the Japanese much.