Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. larrymarx
    3. Posts
    L
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 7
    • Posts 168
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by larrymarx

    • RE: Krieghund - Landing Russian units on UK?

      I’m envisioning these Russia rules as part of a set of rules modifications I want to try whose overall effect would be to balance the game out a little more. The rules would also add more historical flavor. Let me share my list:

      1. Hostile Russia

      These are the rules I proposed above in which Russians and Allies can’t mix and Russia treats all types of neutral as pro-Axis. Also, Russia claims for themselves all Axis-occupied territories, empty Chinese territories, and empty territories belonging to an Allied power with a fallen capital.

      1. Restricted Russia

      This rule would balance out the effect of Russia’s possible Chinese expansion. Russia may not declare war on Japan until Berlin has fallen, and moving units into Chinese territory constitutes a declaration of war on Japan. Japan may still declare war, in which case Russia may then begin to claim Chinese territories and fight the Japanese.

      1. One-theater victory

      The Axis or Allies achieve victory by fulfilling the original victory conditions of either of the individual Europe and Pacific 1940 games. Discussion of this idea can be found at this thread:

      http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20964.0

      1. Joint command

      If a unit is mixed into a larger group of friendly units, it may use its non-combat move to convert into a unit of the same type belonging to the power that has the most units in that group. If the number of units is even, either side may convert to the other.

      I’m considering a few other rules such as Vichy France and focused tech research with less element of luck, but these are the four I’ve decided are good so far.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Has anyone played against themselves lol…?

      When I play against myself it’s always to test some new scheme I think might allow the Axis to win. Every time I play, though, the Allies win. What this has led me to conclude is that there’s no overall winning strategy to pursue as the Axis because they all have Allied counter strategies. Rather, the Axis must spot weaknesses in Allied play and take advantage of them, i.e. when an Allied player doesn’t spot something or doesn’t use the correct counter strategy.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Krieghund - Landing Russian units on UK?

      I actually meant that Russia could seize Chinese-owned territory if it wanted. This would be consistent with allowing Russia to seize Allied territories if the capital of the appropriate power has fallen, because China is a country without a capital. If Japan gets too close to the Russian border, of course Russia would want to repel them but the rules I suggested prohibit the Russians from occupying Allied territory during their non-combat move. Thus to keep the Japanese out of the motherland the Russians must expand their borders and create satellite territories much as they did with Poland prior to the start of the war. I would say the Russians aren’t allowed to engage the Chinese army in combat and can only occupy empty Chinese territories.

      These rules would make it more difficult for the Allies to coordinate but would allow Russia to become more powerful and send more IPCs to Europe. I’m not sure whether the effect would be to tilt the game more in favor of the Axis or not.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Japan/USSR Non-Aggression Pact

      @kcdzim:

      I’d prefer a solution were russia is required abide the cease fire regardless of war in europe , but allow Japan to break it whenever they please (which still doesn’t cause war with the other axis powers).  Russia just has to make sure it will be costly for Japan, which is precisely what they did with the far east forces.

      How about doing this but also allowing Russia to break the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact if Japan chooses to attack early?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Japan/USSR Non-Aggression Pact

      Why not simply add Japan to Italy and Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

      Russia is unable to declare war on Japan until turn 4 unless war has been declared on it by an Axis power. Japan may declare war on Russia whenever it likes but Russia may then go to war against the entire Axis, causing Germany to lose its 5 ipc bonus on the next turn.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Krieghund - Landing Russian units on UK?

      Although calvinhobbesliker does post quite frequently, I don’t have a problem with it. He’s free to disagree with my ideas as much and as often as he likes. Criticism simply challenges me to view my own ideas critically, and I would suggest to everyone on this forum that they should think in the same way. Also, let’s avoid personal insults like suggesting someone doesn’t know what a woman is or has to rely on allowance money. Arguments ought to carry the same weight whether they come from a 10-year-old or a 50-year-old, and suggesting otherwise would be succumbing to personal bias.

      Let me try to return to the topic of this thread. I’m beginning to favor rules causing Russia to treat all neutral countries like pro-axis countries, meaning they must attack to occupy even a pro-allied country, but they can attack true neutrals without global repercussions. If they fail in such an attack, the individual country attacked joins the Axis and may be occupied by any Axis power during its non-combat move.

      I’d like to try a game using these neutrality rules coupled with hostile Russia rules: Allied units and Russian units could never enter each other’s territory during non-combat moves. Russia would never liberate an Axis-controlled allied territory but would instead keep it for itself. Russia could also invade China or empty territories belonging to an Allied power whose capital has fallen. What do you guys think?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Vichy French

      I’ve been thinking about this topic and I came up with a rule for France’s surrender that’s fairly simple and would give some extra options for the Axis. Here it is:

      Puppet States

      When the capital of any minor power is captured, the invading player may elect to establish the conquered power as a puppet state instead of incorporating the territory into its own. The “minor powers” are France, Italy and Australia.

      When a minor power becomes a puppet state, it switches sides and joins the opposing alliance. It immediately regains control of all territory previously conquered by its former enemies and returns control of all territory it has conquered to its former enemies. It loses all money in its treasury. This money is not plundered and may not be spent by any power. The puppet state retains control of all of its units in land belonging to it or its former enemies. If it has units stationed in territory that belongs to a former ally, such units are absorbed by the former ally and become units of the same type belonging to the appropriate power. If any former allies have units in the puppet state’s territory, those units become invading units and the resulting battles are fought immediately in a special combat round. These units may not retreat unless they are air units. Naval units grouped with newly hostile navies are treated as new purchases deployed into hostile waters.

      After this process has been completed, the puppet state now operates normally except it has switched to the opposing side and the player who established the puppet state now controls it. If a former ally of the puppet state is able to take its capital territory, the capital is considered conquered and not liberated. The former ally has the option of repeating the puppet state process and returning the power to its original alliance, in which case the original player controlling that power now regains control of it. The puppet state option does not go away and may be repeated indefinitely by the two alliances as they conquer and reconquer the capital territory of the minor power.

      Because the capital territory never switches control during a puppet state conversion, major factories are not reduced to minor factories. National objectives still apply for the puppet state. When reading these rules, replace any instances of the term “Allies” or “Allied” with “Axis” and vice versa. The only exception to this is France’s national objective. The one-time bonus of four infantry is never available to Axis powers when they conquer or liberate Paris and is awarded to France even if being converted back into an Ally through the puppet state process.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Clarafication on global victory cond…

      It just occurred to me that it’s possible, if very unlikely, for a literal draw to occur, meaning a situation in which neither side has the ability to win according to the game’s rules.

      If every capital in the game is taken by the opposing alliance, then no one has won but all sides have lost the ability to continue producing units. China doesn’t matter because their units are incapable of achieving Allied victory conditions due to ACME walls. If this occurs and all existing land units are destroyed or isolated due to loss of transports, then no side could possibly win because no side could conquer any new territory. Such a game would undoubtedly be a thing of legend.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Simple idea for game balance

      Thanks for the criticism.

      I do agree that the historical justification for my idea is not clear, but consider that the present Axis goal of controlling 14 cities isn’t necessarily historical either. Militarily, no side was going to give up while they still had fight in them. If the Nazis had crushed Russia and overrun Egypt, I think we would still have tried to take them out. Churchill didn’t think of giving up even after Hitler cut through France like butter. Likely we still would have carried out a US/British invasion of France, and Germany would have had to scramble to defend themselves after expending so much to crush the Red Army and subjugate the Russian people. If Japan had taken Honolulu and Calcutta at the same time, would we have laid down our arms?

      For this reason, I believe that the 14 VC condition is not intended to reflect a situation in which the Axis will be capable of eventually prevailing over the Allied military. It more reasonably represents a situation in which the Axis powers will be able to exit the war without having to offer their unconditional surrender. It could represent a level of Axis expansion at which it would no longer be worth it to the Allies to attempt to crush them utterly as they did historically. This could be for any of a number of reasons, including unacceptable loss of life, too much long-term damage to Allied economies, or a shift in public opinion against continuing the war. Realistically, an Axis “victory” probably would have been a treaty in which Germany, Japan and Italy would be allowed to retain some, but not all of their new holdings.

      What if Japan had reached this threshold of unacceptability while Germany and Italy were steadily being reduced? Possibly Japan would have been able to exit the war retaining much of their empire, and this would have been a bad result for the people in that side of the globe. Considering that the war was begun as a stand against tyranny and oppression, an Allied failure to eliminate any quantity of tyranny and oppression against which they were fighting could be seen as a loss. Or, looking at it another way, if Tojo had accomplished his goals while watching Nazi Germany implode, would he have shed any tears?

      As far as game balance, I think this new way would certainly not tilt the game in favor of the Axis. I’ve played and won several times as the Allies using a split Pacific/European strategy that would have made a one-theater Axis victory unlikely. I still think the game would be tilted towards the Allies, but they would just have to be a bit more careful about the strategies they employed. I think the games would become more interesting and a little bit more historical.

      As to the Allies achieving a one-theater victory, I believe that given their victory conditions of having to control enemy capitals it would be a bit harder to do and usually take more time than the Axis performing the same feat.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • Simple idea for game balance

      It struck me that a simple way to keep the Allies from focusing on the European Axis and crushing it before Japan can do anything would be to change the victory conditions for the Axis.

      My suggestion is to use the victory conditions for each board as they were before combining them instead of the Global change to 14 VCs. The Axis would still win if Japan controlled 6 VCs on the Pacific side, so the US would have to intervene by the time Japan reached 5, which could be as early as turn 5 or so. Also, this rules change would open the door to new Axis strategies such as Japan sacrificing the Pacific side of the board to pin the US down and allowing the European Axis to claim 8 VCs on their side.

      The other side of the coin is that the Allies would win according to the original victory conditions as well, so if Japan played as mentioned above, the European Axis would have to race to capture 8 cities before Australia and Britain took Japan. I would propose that if the Allies can capture Japan within a round of the European Axis achieving 8 VCs, the game would be considered a draw, and vice versa if Japan captures 6.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: America in the Middle East

      @special:

      I’ve been thinking about a similar thing for the Europe game, but using the Atlantic starting transporter, it reaches South Africa in around turn 4 (just in time for war, and can use the NB there to go on to the middle east).

      Might work for global as well, though it might be too slow. Will need to try it.

      Actually this would be a good move to use in conjunction with the Philippine Persia grab in the global game. The Philippine units claim Persia on turn four, and then the East US units link up with them on turn five to conquer Iraq with 5 infantry and an artillery or tank. This way the US could get started up in the Middle East a turn sooner.

      Regarding some earlier doubts as to whether the transport will make it, the US can follow this path to get to Persia on turn 3: sz57-75-80. Japan would only be able to stop the transport on turn 2 if they were using an India Crush strategy and had bombers and an air base in Kwangsi, aircraft carriers in sz 36, or if they moved their Caroline navy towards the Dutch East Indies. If this is the case, America may still want to shoot the units out there to get themselves into the war earlier.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • America in the Middle East

      I just had an idea I’m not sure if others have considered yet. The US has the option of taking their infantry in the Philippines and transporting them to sz 80 on turn three. If Japan hasn’t declared war yet, they will need to wait until turn four, but then they will be able to claim Persia for the United States. The US can build a factory, build a few supporting units, then take Iraq on turn 6 or 7, allowing them to build another factory. The US pumping six units a turn into the middle of the board would provide powerful defense for Africa, Russia and India. They could even build naval units and threaten Japan’s operations. What does everyone think?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: B.O.B.C.A.T. vs Beancounter Challenge (players needed)

      I have a class with 14, a class with 22 and another class with 34 students. I’m not complaining because some teachers at this school have upwards of a hundred students total.

      What you propose above is that beancounting is a symptom of inferior thinking and not a cause of poor success at games. So, you haven’t actually argued that strategies based on beancounting are bad strategies, just that the players are bad. Axis and Allies is a game of attrition over the long run, so it could very well be that a strategy based on trying to spend IPCs as efficiently as possible (beancounting) is an effective strategy. All good players should have an understanding of the unique value of bobcatt pieces and should be willing to purchase them if the situation calls for it. If there is a player who realizes this and yet never bases their grand strategies on these units, I think we can call that person a skilled beancounter, don’t you?

      Should the hypothesis be about the nature of players who are beancounters or about strategies based on beancounting?

      Also, do you have a good understanding of statistical significance? I’m asking because I don’t but I do realize it’s an important factor in validating results. Is winning 60% of games statistically significant? I think it depends on the sample size.

      As far as how to collect useful data, I think we have to work out these issues before beginning to think about that.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: B.O.B.C.A.T. vs Beancounter Challenge (players needed)

      I actually created my alias a long time before I discovered Axis & Allies  :-)

      Yes, I’d be happy to be on a research team. This kind of stuff intrigues me. However, bear in mind that I’m also toughing my way through my first year as a high school teacher, so I may not have as much time to devote to this as I’d like.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: B.O.B.C.A.T. vs Beancounter Challenge (players needed)

      By introducing restrictions not present in normal games, the players may find it more difficult to play using their standard strategies and this may cause performance to suffer for a reason unrelated to what type of player they are, thus confounding the data.

      I think the most scientific way of approaching this would be to have the players who agree to participate fill out a survey regarding their standard purchases and strategies for the various nations and then classify them using objective criteria as bobcats or beancounters. Some players may fall into one category as the Axis and another as the Allies. After separating the players into the two categories, the only rules necessary would be for them to adhere to their standard ways of thinking and not try any new ideas in the games. Players will stay within their schools of thought without any restrictions present.

      The only restrictions that may be necessary would be for those players unable to be classified as bobcats or beancounters. After examining the data from the survey, the research team will likely be able to generalize the strategies employed by these two types of players and their schools of thought. Players who are in the middle would then be instructed to favor one set of strategies or another depending on which side is lacking players in order to balance out the teams.

      Another factor that may confound the data in this study would be the (apparent) weighting of the game towards the Allies. This could end up being the biggest factor in determining who wins. To compensate, the research team should record data about the severity of the victories and/or the relative success of the strategies employed. If the allies win all the games, but they do it an average of two turns sooner when played by one or the other of the sides, the data will still be meaningful.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: How should Japan try to save Europe?

      The options that I presented at the beginning of this thread are in response to the Allies going 100% kill Europe first. If you slowly built your pacific fleet all game I would never send the air force away from the Pacific, but on the other hand Europe would be in better shape than if you had. When I play as the Axis, I view sending that fleet to the Atlantic so that you can build mostly ground troops from the start as the most deadly option and so I endeavor to counter it.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Need help forming strategy: Operation Penta-"gone". When US builds KIF?

      @ JamesAleman

      I know you’re not using alpha, but I did raise some objections to this plan OOB that you should take note of if you’re planning on incorporating it into your overall schemes. See above.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: How should Japan try to save Europe?

      This sounds remarkably similar to a strategy that I’ve been working on but haven’t used in a game yet. I’m glad to hear it worked out.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Vichy French

      I’d rather use France’s capitulation as a default rule to make this unbalanced game slightly easier for the Axis. It’s not much, but every little bit helps.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Operation Barbarossa 3.0

      I agree with everything Nagano just said based on my own experience.

      I would add, however, that the Taranto raid combined with support from the Indian navy and air force makes advancing in Africa a much harder prospect. If Britain does this combined with a US KIF strategy, I don’t think Italy has a chance of making it past Egypt no matter what Germany does. When I play the Allies, this is my strategy of choice.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • 1 / 1