Posts made by moralecheck

In Soviet NO 2 and 3, “Prestige” is spelled wrong.  These are great charts! Thanks for your effort.

@Yavid:

CV = Aircraft Carriers
CVN = Aircraft Carriers Night Opperations (WW2 Area)
CVN = Aircraft Carriers Nuclear (modern)
DEI = Dutch East Indies
SS = Submarines (I’m assuming it’s for Submerible Ship)
Sealion = Operation Sealion (The German invasion of UK)
Barbarosa = Operation Barbarosa (The German invasion of USSR)
I’ve heard of people using Typhoon (The German mad dash to take Moscow)
and Blue (The German push into Southern Russia)
HMS = Her Majesty’s Ship
IJ = Imperial Japan
USSR = Russia
AB = Air Base
NB = Naval Base

Alot of Axis and Allies fans are either military buffs, history buffs or both so ship stuff like CV or DD or SS is used for ships alot and WW2 Operations get used for general strategies. Such as "The Western Allies (america and uk) need to d-day (do i need to say what this is) asap (as soon as possible) to help russia fight off Barbarosa.

The H in HMS was “His” for WW2.

Citadel(le) = Historically, it was the German codename for the Kursk offensive.  In AA terms, it can (at least in my group)  refer to an all out and luck dependant German offensive against Russia launched in hopes of turning the tables in games where the Russians have already survived the biggest of German pushes and are clearly starting to win.  A failed Citadel usually marks the beginning of the end of the game.

@knp7765:

I had an idea last night regarding the new Air Transport planes (which we should have for every nation before too much longer if FMG can kick their Chinese factory in the butt) and the Paratroops tech for Global 1940. So far, the rules regarding Air Transport planes seems to be:
Cost 10, Move 4, Attack=0, Defense=0
Last unit in territory to be destroyed, much like sea transports in naval battles.
Can carry 1 Paratroop unit for Combat Move, 2 infantry/paratroop/marines/etc. in Non Combat Move. MUST be loaded at an Air Base in CM or NCM.
Paratroops can be dropped behind enemy lines and transport can land in any friendly territory in Combat Move.
Infantry/Paratroops/Marines/etc. must be off loaded at a friendly Air Base in Non Combat Move.
Can be hit by AA fire and if so, paratroops/ infantry/ etc. are lost with plane.

Okay, so I thought if we didn’t want to change the Paratroop tech too much and to accomodate our new piece, the Paratroop Tech could simply be changed to say that now Air Transport planes can carry 2 (TWO) Paratroop units into a battle. Perhaps simply call it “Improved Paratroop Abilities”.
Sound Good?

I don’t think “chosen last” in combat is necessary for air transports.  Sea transports are dirt cheap compared to other sea or air units, so it made sense there.  These units are more than 3 times the price of an inf unit.  No one is going to be using air transports as fodder.

I’m fine with limiting who can build them. Although the game does allow some ahistorical builds as it is, Japanese mech inf come to mind.

I agree that USA and UK are the best choices to have marines.  I think Japan should have them out of gameplay fairness.  If the USA is gonna use these units for easier island hopping when they are the richest power in the game, Japan needs to at least be given the same chance.  In the case of ANZAC,  they are a very unexciting power to control.  If everyone but them in the pacific gets marines, they are even more likely to miss out on the game (which is fine in a 2 player game, but not so fun if ANZAC has its own player).  Would limiting them to those four powers make sense?  I can’t really see HBG cranking out Russian marine figs anyway.  :-D

Ok, totally new idea.  Forget the capacity thing…marines count as a regular inf.

Instead, we raise their attack to a 2 (cannot increase with art, so pair them with something else on the barge) when attacking in amphibious assault BUT it must be against an island.

Marines get a special bonus and there is no real use for them outside of the pacific.  Admittedly this means the only powers who would buy them are ANZAC, India, Japan and USA but that strikes me as fine (unless island hopping in the Med. Sea  is popular in some groups :-D).  We don’t want to make sea lion or d-day too easy.

Thoughts?

@Tall:

I must say that I’m enjoying the intelligent and thoughtful discussion with everyone on this subject. It shows that ya’ll (I’m a Southerner) truly care for and understand this wonderful strategy game we have.

“Tall Paul”

Me too.  :-)

How about 3 marines or 2 marines and 1 of any other unit? Allowing a free marine on every transport seems a bit sneaky.

I’m also trying to think of a reason for them to not work well in the ETO, but am drawing a blank so far.  (trying to keep it historical).

Been a long time since I played WiF… :-)

Well in A&A IB, marines attacked on a 3.  Too powerful.  In A&AP, they attacked on a 2 and could be raised to 3 by artillery (i think, it’s been a while).  Still too powerful.  Add to that, they were being used to assault territories that the unit could have walked into, just to activate shore bombardment and marine bonuses.  An amphibious assault should not be easier than an overland route.  An attack on a 2, doesn’t really work either as 2 marines are no more effective than an inf and an artillery combo (which would cost 1 less ipc).  To be honest, I was just gonna use HBG’s US marines as pacific infantry.  That said, if we were to have marine abailities, I’d suggest this:  cost 4 ipc, strength 1/2/1.  Ability:  A sea transport carrying marines (and only marines) can carry 3.  This would give them a distinct advantage, and maybe lead to more island battles.  It also emphasizes the importance of air support in those battles.  Don’t think of the transport as being overloaded, think of the marine units as smaller.

Sorry for the threadjack!  Maybe we should continue this in another thread.  :oops:

I’d tend to be against this (reminds me of marines in AAP which actually made amphibious assaults EASIER than land battles).  But I might be open to attacks with a 2 (not increased by art) on the first round of combat, and then a 1 after that (or 2 with art).  Reflects the surprise nicely.  Even a 1 reflects their elite status as they are packing the same punch as their better equipped inf counterparts.

It is balanced by only carrying one inf in the ncm, don’t you think?  10 ipc is still a big investment to fly around one inf so they will not result in ‘unlimited reinforcing of units’.  I actually see the 2 capacity/needs airfield way as more likely to result in over reinforcing. The problem with air transports is that they re WAY to hard for the enemy to hit, so this also addresses that by keeping their capacity down (you had mentioned the enemy countering them, what did you mean?  SBR’s on their landing zone AB’s?  That’s a lot of investment and risk to counter a transport).  I think in all likelyhood we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I’m liking what you have written.  We need to iron out tech rules that effect them, and a replacement for airborne tech, but that’s about it.  I agree with the ‘representing a few trips’ idea as well.  I’m pretty sure the Me-323 Gigant would be able to carry an inf units organic trucks and artillery (over a few trips, with several aircraft) but I don’t think any other nation had an equivalent to it, nor would the the Gigant have been used for paradrops, so I guess the abstraction continues!

@Spendo02:

Move the French cruiser in 112 to 110.
Move the UK cruiser in 112 to 111.
Move the German cruiser and transport in 113 to 114.
Add 1 UK mechanized infantry and 1 French infantry to United Kingdom.
Add 1 UK infantry and 1 AA gun to Scotland.
Change 1 French tank and 1 French artillery in France to equivalent UK units.

Change the Soviet “Spread of Communism” NO to “3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.”

I believe those are the finalized changes.

And add 1 AA gun to India, bringing the total to 3.  (from KH, later in the linked thread)

@Tall:

While your idea of destroying Air Transports via SBR raids on Airbases is very interesting,…I believe it might “open up a can of worms” that we don’t want to.

You reasoning allows you to kill the Air transports easily enough, even after your enemy has gone to the trouble and exspence of buying Airbases, Air transports, and Paratroops and/or Infantry. I don’t think this is just. And there certainly is no equivilent for the killing of Sea Transports. So I would respectfully disagree.

Fair enough, it was more of a passing thought anyway.

i’m ok with marines on air transports, so I assume the last part was for Almashir.

I’ve still been thinking about how hard air transports are to kill.  I had an idea, so I thought I’d run it by you guys.  An air transport can destroyed by SBRing the airfield of the territory that it is in.  If the damage is to the airfield is 3 or 4 an transport is destroyed (in addition to the airbase being unusable). If the damage is 5 or 6 than 2 air transports are destroyed (the most that can be destroyed, with an attack like this), assuming there are 2 or more.  This gives them a vulnerablity, increases SBRs, and adds a realistic depth of making sure that you give them adequate fighter protection.  Air transports in territories without airbases cannot be attacked in this manner, but they are not a position to do anything anyway.

It’s not that odd, actually. Picture the tac bombers as hitting the fighters when they are on the ground, and hitting their ground facilities when they are in the air (those battles are fairly long).  The defending fighters’ airstrips and fuel/ammo dumps are being destroyed by the tacs, causing the fighter unit to suffer indirect damage.  The tac is increased as it can focus on bombing while its fighter escort covers it from defending fighters.  It’s a little abstract, but it works.

Tall Paul,

I forgot about the marines, sorry.  Yes, carrying any infantry type piece in the NCM is fine with me.

@coachofmany:

@virtualpender:

What about a third color to be used to represent Vichy forces?

Can’t wait for this set regardless.

What do you propose?

Dark blue?

Here is what I’m thinking.

Paratrooper:

Paratrooper 1/2/1. cost 4ipcs.  Functions like an inf in all regards except that it can be paradropped.  
There is no bonus assigned to paratroopers who are airdropped.  They attack on a 1 unless there is an artillery that came by land or sea to raise their attack to a 2.

Air Transport:

0/0/4. Costs 10 ipcs.  An air transport does receive the 1 mp bonus for an airbase. Long range tech will increase their move by 1.

Capacity: 1 inf or para unit.  Must load in an airbase. Does not need an airbase to unload.

Combat move:  Load a paratrooper unit (only) onto a transport, they must start in the same space and there must an airbase.  An air transport may not not move first and pick up a paratrooper on the way. Move the transport to its target territory for the airdrop.  Empty transports CANNOT be combat moved as fodder.

During combat:  An air transport drops it’s paratrooper immediately after AA fire.  As a loaded air transport costs more than a bomber, it need not be chosen last.  After dropping it’s paratrooper, it immediately retreats from the battle, to be landed in the NCM.  If defending, and air transport cannot fire but can be taken as a loss, again it need not be chosen last.

Non Combat move:  If the plane moved in the CM, land it.  If not:  It can be loaded with one inf or para and be moved to a destination within range and unloaded.  There must be an airbase in the space where it loaded, but not where it lands. The transport, inf/para and airbase must all start the NCM in the same space.  An air transport may not start its move empty and pick its cargo on the way. You cannot make a paradrop in the NCM even if the cargo is a paratrooper.  The transport must land.  If an air transport starts its NCM in a space without an airbase, it may still move, it just can’t carry any units.

Notes:  I support 10 ipc cost over 5 as these units are very hard to kill and more versatile then sea transports.  I’m not sure about the 6 move and 2 unit limit in the NCM as the capacity is too high and the range would allow units to fly across the atlantic, which never happened at this scale.  I think it would lead to some very ahistorical stuff, in particular the USA flying inf units galore to the UK from the USA. Â

2 unit capacity could also allow the axis to flood africa.  I think we should leave the large loads to the barges.

@ghr2:

@moralecheck:

The benefit is that Brazil is only one sea zone away.�  A transport can Move from Brazil to Africa and offload.�  The next turn that same transport can go back to Brazil pick up 2 new units and still make it back to Africa to unload them, so one transport can bring two units to Africa each turn. From Washington it needs one full turn to get there and up to two (depending if there is a friendly naval base) to get back to Washington to get the next load.�  One transport needs three to four turns to bring four land unts from Washington.

Ya but FWA is not a very productive spot to land your units, it will take a few extra turns before they would become useful.

True.  It is probably a much less useful strategy if the axis has not cracked Egypt.  When I used it the Axis had taken London on turn 3 and had cracked Egypt and were pushing south with the UK unable to stop them.  In this instance FWA was not so bad, especially when every second unit the US landed was a mech or armor.

Wow, those look great!