Posts made by Kobu

Best bang for the buck is inf/art pairs. You can buy tanks or mech inf for your captured ICs if you really want some.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Gravy:

I should clarify that we allow tanks to blitz into enemy territories that are unoccupied during the non-combat movement phase.  We are testing it now…see what happens.

I think that will help the axis more than the allies

I think so too. Italy would normally clear pickets, and that’s hard enough for Russia to account for. If Germany can do it on it’s own, Russia won’t be able to hold a line very well any time there are tanks on the border.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@maverick_76:

@Kobu:

@maverick_76:

Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?

No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.

I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.

Yes. Italians will rule Africa due to its 2 transports survviving

I’m not so sure. UK is more likely to keep some ships, not do the Taranto raid, and then Germany is less likely to try Sealion. That would let UK purchase for South Africa. UK also has a lot of tricks they can pull maneuvering between the Middle East, India, and South Africa. I think the battle for Africa is going to be more exciting, but not slanted too much to either side.

calvin just conceded a game where he tried this out. I believe he executed it correctly, but I don’t really see any way it could work. Even if the Russian player doesn’t see it coming, he’s got 2 full rounds to react and that’s plenty of time to consolidate and buy more cheap units. Three when you see the air base being built and see where it can reach. The German tank purchase also made me wary. As usual though, I huddled when I saw the naval buy, expecting at least an attack at Novgorod.

The tanks would have been an irritant blitzing around, but my next purchase would be 4 tanks and 4 mechs to chase them down. At this point with my Russian hordes vastly outpipping both the Germans and Japanese, I can easily afford to go with the pricier and more mobile units and begin pushing out in all directions. This also gave the UK a chance to start buying ships again, along with units in Africa. Japan is in no position to hurt India or ANZAC, and the US is coming to Europe shortly.

I’ve attached a map so you can see what the Axis are up against. This is the end of Russia in round 3. Japan should be landing planes, then Germany has to advance. If they come closer to those stacks, they are going to get creamed. They could survive a round by going to Archangel or the Urals, but then that’s missing the point of reaching Moscow. Russia even has enough troops to deal with the southern forces at the same time. Japan could put a decent dent in the Russian stack, but it’s not going to be nearly enough and they’ll lose everything doing it.

Japan planes clearing a path or as part of a final push for Moscow has always been a sound strategy, but this is quite different. It’s less than dicey because you’ll never get close to landing enough Germans to push all the way to Moscow, and your normal front will be very soft.

calvinvkobu03bR.AAM

I would try a one-on-one game.

@maverick_76:

Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?

No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.

@ll:

Not sure I like the Global victory conditions for the Axis… seems like the Axis can make a cheap victory grab by blitzing Asia.

Anyone notice The airbase/fighter in Scicily now?  While it won’t STOP Taranto, it may help make it more even.  I like that the scramble rules are now limited.  ( it also makes a Scicily/Sardinia Airbases combo very nice)

I think it will flat out stop it for most players, especially if Germany lands a couple of fighters in Northern Italy. The odds are pretty bad of getting through to the battleship and transport, and that’s really what you want as the UK.

That can still be done through NOs, and an all-out KGF shouldn’t be made impossible, just harder to pull off.

Looking at this new setup, the Taranto raid is going to be very costly to attempt. It would be nice if there were a fighter and tac on Malta/Gibraltar so a real bloody air raid could still be attempted. In compensation, give Italy maybe a couple more infantry. I do like how Italy has been pumped up.

It does seem that Britain will be able to maintain some of their ships. And Russia gets a nice boost in the Far East. It will be interesting to see if Italy’s new strength can offset this and the Allies’ original advantages.

The map was posted in the other thread.

@hewhoisnickel:

I’m not liking the new victory conditions for the Axis. It further takes away from the global feel of this global game. If you can win by only playing well on one side, what’s the point of having both boards out?

I don’t much like it either. I think getting the US to pay attention to the Pacific should be done via NOs, not victory conditions. The Allies can pound either side into the dust, and just be out of position on the other and the Axis can win.

@Kobu:

Is waiting to have your messages approved standard on Larry’s board? It’s annoying to wait for them to show up, and I still have one pending from days ago.

If my post doesn’t show up, could someone ask about the 10 IPC NO for Amur? It seems Japan can bypass through Siberia easily enough, and Russia can enter China without triggering it either. I’m wondering if that’s intentional, and I guess why there is that particular restriction. Now that I think about it, shouldn’t it just be “before turn 4” instead of specifying Amur, and on turn 4, the NO condition is lifted?

Thanks.

Is waiting to have your messages approved standard on Larry’s board? It’s annoying to wait for them to show up, and I still have one pending from days ago.

If my post doesn’t show up, could someone ask about the 10 IPC NO for Amur? It seems Japan can bypass through Siberia easily enough, and Russia can enter China without triggering it either. I’m wondering if that’s intentional, and I guess why there is that particular restriction. Now that I think about it, shouldn’t it just be “before turn 4” instead of specifying Amur, and on turn 4, the NO condition is lifted?

@deadbunny:

the USA can build a massive fleet and either take Rome or move into Africa(I have seen both done in a single turn).

Do you mean building the fleet and taking Rome and Africa in the same turn? I must be misunderstanding this post.

Well, if I had written it, I think I would have been referring to SZ 92 which is where the US may want to be at the end of turn 4. It can dump troops into both Italy and Egypt. Maybe as a turn to take away victory cities? Otherwise, I’d just go straight for Italy and reinforce it next turn.

@calvinhobbesliker:

How? American planes can’t reach it if Morocco and Algeria have fallen. Every 2 units transported there requires a 7 ipc transport. Additionally, once in Z91, germany can hit with with subs and bombers from Z112 and West germany.

That’s fine. Germany has more ground units and money than Russia anyway; it can afford to help out Italy.

How? The only planes that can reach Z92 are bombers, which shouldn’t be able to land if Gib and Morocco and Algeria have been taken.

Japan being pushed back in Asia? By a 10 ipc ANZAC, a 1 ipc China, and a 5 ipc India? Doubt it.

Why bother? How many troops can the US build by turn 3 to get to Gibraltar, along with transports. US has 106 ipcs. It needs at least a CV for fleet defense, leaving it with 90 to spend. With that, you can buy 6 loaded transports, or 12 troops. Not hard to defead(or even defend Italy; which should be making at least enough to build 9 inf and move them to Rome. German forces in WGer can also help.)

How about this: we play a forum game, which will be the best way to test this. You play allies, I play axis.

OK, I’ve changed my mind. I think I can make time for a forum game. Like I wrote in the other thread, It’s been many years since my last forum game so I’ll have to be shown how to do the forum dice rolling. Some of the conventions seem to have changed also (looks like loss order is assumed for simple battles…) but I suppose I can figure that out. Alpha is fine by me. No tech I would assume.

@calvinhobbesliker:

I didn’t say it balances G40. I said it removes the same things from both sides.

Then I don’t know what point you were trying to make in a topic about trying to make the game more balanced.

@calvinhobbesliker:

It also prevents the US from using it. Taranto is the only time the UK uses the NB.

Ask jim010 about what to do after Sealion.

Please tell me why “not even close” applies to my statement that the alpha setup weakens both sides equally?

It’s meant to balance the Pacific game and it does so by severely scaling back on Japan forces so they can’t just win by declaring war on turn 1. I don’t know why you’d think that would balance the global game when the Axis are already so far behind.

@oztea:

@kobu

It doenst matter that you cant bomb it on I1, you only have to bomb it BEFORE the US is using it. and every turn thereafter.

UK cant repair it on the US turn so any US boats there are trapped because they cant get back to the US, or to Italy, or to west germany or norway.

The Gibraltar naval base isnt going anywhere, it is an icon of the United Kingdom simply because it is a naval base.

If you want it gone, bomb it.

Germany turn 1 is when you’d want to bomb it to protect the Italian fleet. But that option is not there.

You have less than a 50% of damaging it to the point of uselessness with a single bomber in a single turn. That chance goes down to practically nothing once the US lands forces there. So how does the US fleet get trapped? Unless you are assuming the UK is gone so they aren’t able to repair it, I don’t really understand what your strategy is trying to accomplish.

@Imperious:

Move the UK carrier and DD to another location so that it cant attack, or just use my original idea:

Italy is neutral until her turn, sop she cant be attacked. ON her turn SHE begins her war, not England.

Moving the carrier would work. My idea was to help with both issues of the immediate sinking of the Italian fleet and the immense movement bonus later for the US.

A neutral Italy isn’t a bad idea, however Italy had already declared war at this point. I suppose you could flub it.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Balance does not necessarily mean helping Italy. Removing Queensland NB prevents all the DEI from being reached.

Weakening the Allies in the Pacific, and the already least effective Ally next to France at that, isn’t going to balance the game at all. It just makes ANZAC a bit less fun to play.

@calvinhobbesliker:

The alpha setup weakens both sides equally, removing the same number of planes from both sides and also removing 2 allied transports and 1 Japanese transport. It reduces the number of Indian planes by 2, which would help Italy.

Not even close.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Germany does not lose the game by doing Sealion. Its multiple transports allow lots of units to be shipped into Russia(for example, into Novgorod or Nenetsia).

Fat lot of good that’s going to do. See the numerous play reports. If you’ve got something that works, make a thread on it and tell us your strategy.

If the game is unbalanced, just weaken the US by finding a way to reduce its income or something. Don’t weaken the UK in the only theater it has a chance in.

A fairer fight between Italian and UK forces is much preferable to this notion of giving something to the UK.

I’m up for a game to test these ideas. Since you think alpha weakens the axis, I’ll play axis and we can use the alpha setup.

What exactly did you want to test? That the Allies simply crush the Axis as the game is today? I think you could get this from basically playing anyone or reading the battle reports. I myself haven’t played online in nearly a decade and don’t really have the time or inclination to do so anymore.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Why not? Any setup change should apply to both games.
What does Italy usually do in your games?

Because the Axis don’t need to be weakened in the global game.

@calvinhobbesliker:

#2 is using your argument(Although a base is historical, an ally never used it to take x, so we should remove the base since the game clearly favors the side with said base) and applying it to Queensland.

I posted the reasons why it should be removed. They are very clear if go back and read the topic. “It’s historical” is not in a good reason to keep it in my opinion. It’s an abstracted game, not a reenactment. I also pointed out that it’s use in this game isn’t historical anyway. The Queensland base does what for balance? Nothing I can see. Removing it does not help out Italy or anything else that needs to be addressed.

I posted an alternate balance idea in another thread you posted in.

@calvinhobbesliker:

As for Italy not having a fighting chance without its navy, that is incorrect. It can take Egypt, fly in German planes, and builda minor in Egypt, meaning it no longer needs navy to take Africa. With the NB and the Suez open, Italy can reach down to Tanzania. Additionally, transports in Z97 can invade Sudan. I don’t think you are playing Italy correctly.

So, let’s say Italy does take Egypt. Let’s not go completely crazy and say they are able to do this on turn 2 and the UK didn’t fly over any planes. Now Germany is risking their fighters on clearing pickets or what? I dunno. So third turn Italy is sailing around with it’s mere two troops and building an IC. Let’s say they’ve made it to Sudan. Hey, just three more turns until they get to South Africa! Maybe those two troops on the transport will get the drop on South Africa with some fighter support. Oh, and the UK apparently didn’t buy anything there…because Germany did Sealion (I’m guessing), which of course cost Germany the game, but whatever. Good job Italy. Now how are you going to stop the US?