Posts made by Little_Boot

The proposed house rules would be better with a d12 system than a d6 system.
For example, infantry would normally attack on a 2 (Same 1/6 probability), but Italian infantry could attack on a 1. Making them unable to roll attack dice is pretty unreasonable.

Minor threat, I sent you a PM about starting a team.

I just read about this in a message, and I’m interested. Should I start a team myself or join an existing one?

If you’re planning on helping Germany kill Russia, it could work. What I see people do is either pull out of china, and send the units north through Siberia, or build a couple of factories and completely push through china in a line aimed at Stalingrad. Either way, you completely abandon any hope of a Pacific victory.

I used my air to block his reinforcement zones, until he smartened up and put some artillery into the central zones. I also stopped some of his tank movements with air power, when I was able to. Perhaps I wasn’t aggressive enough with air power.
Since I am so bad at this, what sort of allied strategy would you suggest?

Yeah, it looks like the game will be more simplified, with less territories and rules. Probably an updated version of Revised/1942, with a new start date.

I had recently ordered D-Day, to play with one of my friends, who wants to learn the game, but is overwhelmed by G40. I knew it was axis biased, so I let him play as them, so that it would be a more fair fight (I can beat him consistently if the dice aren’t massively against me).

I got off the beaches pretty quickly, and it looked like it was gonna be an allied win. His blockhouses didn’t do much the first round, hit a couple of units. By the second round, I was fighting in Caen, I would hold it at the end of round 3. All of his blockhouses (the ones that could fire onto the beaches, at least) were gone by round 3. By round 5 I had Cherbourg, undisputed. I had units in St. Lo on round 5 as well.

However, after all of this, I still couldn’t manage to wipe him out of St. Lo by 10. At the end of round ten, I had two tanks in St Lo, he had three and an artillery, which is an Axis win. This surprised me, that I couldn’t get him out of the city in four rounds. He had two stacks of eight in the two territories behind the city, and constantly reinforced it. If I tried to send up troops to lock them in combat, he’d move forward, leaving his reinforcement lines clear.

How can this game be balanced? I think I’d really like this game if it was a fair fight between the two sides, but I can’t really get much enjoyment if it’s that badly axis biased. Someone being able to beat me that I can beat about 90% of the time is bad.

What he’s trying to say is that Korea is adjacent to SZ 5, which it shouldn’t be. The line goes just south of the Korea-Amur border.

Wow that looks effective. I might try that in my next game, see if I can pull it off.

I’d say the infantry, every time. You get more bang for your buck in this situation.

What would having a shortage of oil do? Perhaps limit the amount of Mechanized units that can blitz/take part in combat on a single turn. Maybe every oil well is worth ten tanks/mechs of blitzing and combat.
If you don’t have enough, not all of your units can blitz, or they can attack at a decreased value. Tanks that aren’t supplied properly would attack on 2 two, rather than a 3.

You are blitzing 4 mechs and 4 tanks into a territory, and making attacks with 14 tanks, but you only have two oil wells. You can supply 20 units of oil, but are using 22 units of oil (8 from blitzing, and 14 from the combat), so two of your tanks must fight at a two instead of a three. How does that sound?

@kcdzim:

@loki17:

In Alpha 3+ when  Japan is not at war with the British, can they fly over British territories?

Yes, and they have been able to in all iterations of the rules as well.

1. A power that is not neutral is free to fly over other territories with aircraft.
2. Japan begins at war with China.
3. UK/Anzac begin at war with Germany & Italy (even on the pacific boards, as only Russia has board specific neutrality).

4. Neither Japan or UK are neutral, therefore both can fly over each other’s territories.

The exception to the rules is that the UK or Anzac are not permitted to enter Chinese territories as a condition of their relations with Japan.  Doing so requires a declaration of war on Japan by UK/ANZAC prior to movement into China, even for flyovers.

For that last part, can UK fly over territories that were originally Chinese if they are held by Japan (including the coastal territories)? 
Also, can you retreat after you have destroyed every enemy unit in a battle?

@WILD:

and also one of your original colored territories (can’t place them on captured territory).

Actually, it’s one with your roundel printed onto the territory, so Japan can’t build major ICs on the mainland, except in Korea.

Does raising infantry count against a factories production total?  IE you have a factory in Egypt, can I now build 3 infantry there, + another for the value of the territory?

My logic is that you don’t really need heavy industry to equip soldiers with guns and put them through basic training, but I don’t know how this would affect balance. What do you think?

What about Germany?  Can Germany build 10 tanks, and 5 infantry now, in Berlin if they have the money?

Again, not sure. Also, it’d only be four, because it’s minus 1.

Can a territory be SBR’d to prevent people from building infantry there?

If you can come up with a way to do that, then sure.

UK can now also build units in West India, and WALK them over to India herself.  Germany is able is raise units in Norway too.

I see those as good things, but I don’t know how it would balance.

American might not have been building capital ships, but they HAD them,  and why should they have to upgrade a factory to build bombers?  does that make sense?

America has a battleship and a carrier at the start, which I think is appropriate. Perhaps we could allow the US to build capital ships/bombers at game start, but at increased cost. Alternatively, we could give them a Major IC in eastern US, so they could build them before the war starts, if they so please.

Gargantua, those are nice points, but they can be fixed with some quick rules.
1. Make Infantry able to be recruited up to their territories’ production value minus one. This prevents Russia from constructing infantry in the far east.
2. No builds from islands (Except UK/Scotland, Japan, Australia, like in the normal game).

I think ANZAC not building capital ships is a good thing, and makes some sense. I’m not aware of any battleships or carriers build in Australia during the war. Also, the Americans could upgrade one of their factories before entering the war in order to build capital ships/bombers. As far as I know, America wasn’t really preparing to go to war with capital ships when they were attacked. Again, if they want to get a head start, they can upgrade the factories prematurely.

I find it kind of odd that you are able to produce three battleships at a minor complex with no naval base. I’ve thought in the past that your builds should be restricted, or even allowed based on your infrastructure (ICs, Air/Naval Bases). My proposal is this: certain combinations of facilities will allow production of certain units.

Minor IC - Land units, fighter, transport, destroyer.
Minor IC w/ Naval Base - add cruiser, sub.
Minor IC w/ Air Base - add tac bomber.

Major IC - Land units, fighter, tac bomber, transport, destroyer, sub, cruiser.
Major IC w/ Naval Base - Add Battleship/Carrier
Major IC w/ Air Base - Add Bomber

Naval Base (Alone) - Transport, Destroyer (Max 1/Round)
Air Base (Alone) - Fighter (Max 1/Round)

How do you think these would balance out? Maybe also allow Infantry to be recruited in any originally owned territory (Up to the territory’s production value)? I may be able to play a game with these rules in the next few weeks, although they wouldn’t be against people I have much trouble beating anyways. 
Anyway, thanks for reading.

That will hurt the Allies’ chances, I think. The united states needs to be able to focus most of it’s income on one theater, and defeat one power before turning to the other, which is what happened in the actual war. I think the US would have had very slow going if the Axis had not had such bad strategy and rolls.

@knp7765:

Snip

And, if the attack won’t go well because they built up their navy/land defense too much, then you can just turn around and to sealion instead! This sounds great, I may do this next time I’m Germany.

But they aren’t really the aggressor, they’re joining to help defend their allies.

Should you change it to making an unprovoked declaration of war? I think it’s kind of odd that the United States would lose morality for declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.