Posts made by murraymoto

@C_Strabala:

@Rakeman:

It’s pretty much a game of cat and mouse… the Russians must give ground until they are in a position where they can attack the vulnerable stack and win, or at least do enough damage so that most of the forces are destroyed.  If the German stack collapses, it’s game over, as the Germans put their eggs in one basket.

I agree. But Germany can also use the same tactic against the Russians. By trading most of Eastern Europe & pumping units into Africa/Mid-East, they can effectively outflank the Russians.

True, but a well-adjusted Russian player will realize that they do not need to invade Germany, only hold them up long enough for the rest of the Allies to arrive.  I’ve played the cat&mouse game a number of times as Russia a number of times and frustrated the Germans greatly. 
  In at least half of those when the western front opened up, the Germans had to shift forces to help defend, and then as Russia I invaded and actually was the country that took Berlin.

Where to place Supply Depots?  They have to be close to your units to utilize them, so they can go into the hex with the units, perhaps on the front line, or in a hex behind, but adjacent to the line.

During the first half of the game with no aircraft it is easy to keep supplies behind the lines and more units on the front.  BUT, come round 5 and airpower, the supplies become a valued target for the allies.

So, do you place them with the front line units, decreasing attacking power but increasing protection of the supplies or place them in the rear, usually with smaller numbers of units protecting the supplies?

Frimmel’s Axis Strategy (which is very good-great job Frimmel) suggests to keep supplies and trucks out of the front line as much as possible.  Supplies and trucks can be considered more valuable than tanks–without the fuel, the tanks are merely roadside art.

But what has everyone’s game experience found?  Are you able to keep trucks/supplies out of front lines for all/most of the game or do you push them right to the front to protect them from aircraft and move more quickly forward?

Your thoughts?

DH,

Just found your version of the map, and I remember when Positronica started that.  Great job on taking it and running, looks beautiful.

they did, only the tank in the south even survived, –in the north, a couple infantry, an ART and the tank.  Allies should have dumped more into Bastogne and surrounding area i guess. 
  And since nothing else survived, the tank was cut off from supplies and allies didn’t bring any more up to allow it to even move.

I tried this in a my 2nd to last game as the allies, just purposely pulled everything back from the front that survived (slowly and shooting when I could) while I dumped everything into a line from leige-weirbomont-laroche-bastogne (sorry, don’t have a big version of the map with me to read and spell names correctly).  I retreated (shooting) from malmedy back to weirbomont  and also from clerveax back to bastogne.
   once there I reinforced everything I there and once the axis arrived i always kept one truck in the cities along with fuel to take hits.   When air support arrived I aimed for and pounded where ever the axis had a truck and hopefully where that supply dump supported 3 surrounding zones.
   This was the first time where my air power actually seemed to do anything (could be that I quit splitting air force into 3 groups and went to 2 or even 1)  my opponent always won initiative on air power and always had me place first.  He put all of his into where ever most of my planes were. 
  It had to do with some luck, but targeting his trucks seemed to be the key for me–by turn 6 he only had two left and they were in a ZOC so they couldn’t leave the board to resupply.  He only needed 4 points but only had enough on board supplies to attack either bastogne or leige.  He chose bastogne and moved everything he could to attack from 3 hexes.  After the battle, i had 1 tank and a truck in bastogne, and he had lost all of his trucks.

This was quite a change with the allies generally winning on turn 6.

So after this we swapped sides and played again.  I figured that he with would try what I did and was wondering what I could do to change it…   
   What I came up with was because Clerveax was cleared, I blitzed tanks right up to the doorstep of Bastogne and didn’t allow him to move his tank from south of Clerveax to move and block me.  He began pulling back as before but he had to put more into bastogne to start.  Well, he destroyed all of my tanks at bastogne, but my supply lines were opened all the way to the gates and by the end of turn 2 I had a sufficient force to threaten bastogne.  I also chose to strike more through Malmedy than into eupen.
   by turn 4 i had taken Ortheuville and was threatening the 10 points of cities just northwest of there as well as the down towards Libramont.  It all happened so quick that the allies just couldn’t put enough units anywhere in the south to hold anything.

thoughts about this… maybe not be too cautious to blitz tanks and lose them, because they can open supply roads.  I lost tanks blitzed to Ortheuville and Bastogne, but was able to move into them soon after because roads became clear.

So in the span of like 5 hours we saw our first rout by the allies followed by an even scarier rout by the axis and unless we missed some rule that should have kept something from happening, we now have more questions and interest in the game than before.  we’ve played most of the AA games, and BOTB has to be arguably one of the best.

Our group added Italy into AAR and starting poking around with AAE to have them too.  Our version of AAR with them is a good bit similar to what the Anniversary setup, with Italy, parts of the Balkans and northern Africa split between Germany & Italy.  Most of the navy in the Med went to Italy, but Germany was given a transport.  Germany’s IPC values were bumped up and Russia was as well to compensate. 
  Our thoughts were that the AAE setup could be much the same, though spread out abit more with the extra territories.  Maybe a couple extra British units in the Oil territories and additional IPCs to Russia.

@cyan:

like stalin was that stupid. stalin and hitler hated each other and there were plans for a major russian adttack to break the treaty. communists and facists can’t work  together on anything.

Don’t forget that the Nazi party’s official title was, “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”.

@Deaths:

sigh Well then think of it like this. The 75 IPC’s also includes the trade the UK was getting from the US that’s not represented in the original game. But how is it actually represented on the board. In the spaces worth something but shouldn’t be.
Play a game on the map, even at 75 IPC’s UK can’t do a whole lot but try to hang on.  If it is lowered I wouldn’t suggest going lower then 65.
This would make sense if we planned on using the previous set up charts since they pretty much mimic AAE+AAP

If the 75 for the UK is the money/income/production from trade and lend lease from the US, then shouldn’t the US total go down?  And didn’t Deepblue say he was going to put in lend lease rules for this version?  If so, then looking at the 75 for UK would be double dipping their trade income.

Totalling the AAE and AAP boards is a nice thought, seems simple enough except that in order to give the UK it’s totals in those games the totals of each independently includes income from territories that are NOT on the board.  Example-income on the AAP board includes supplies/ipcs from Europe and Africa.  This would be the same for the reverse of AAE having income coming from the Pacific.  To add them together gives you a inaccurate total.

Even Aldertag’s numbers paint a very different view of the UK income and go along with the Harrison numbers I posted previously.   It would make more sense to give the US 100 and make them wait a turn to build then to give the UK more than Germany.

By the way, Aldertag, where did your info come from?  book, web?  nice percentage chart.

@Deaths:

UK’s income is all of her colonies around the world put together. So in Retrospect England has to control literally Half of the world to be at the same level as the US. If you look at the map they do control half of the world in total Square miles under 1 Flag.
The US achieves this total because that’s the way it was. 
For England to be a playable country in this game they need a large starting income. England will find themselves short of cash real fast and out of the game.
As for Germany’s 54 IPC’s, don’t forget Italy’s additional 25. Italy is a new country to this game and they took over what used to be German Territories in past games. So GE income before I adjusted it was set at 74(Italy included) Italy also has the opportunity to make alot of cash fast if they sweep through Afrika and let the Germans Concentrate on the European and Russian fronts. Italy can realistically reach the 35-45 IPC range easily.
The allies did have a vast production rate over the Axis. The Axis start the game out Military power houses. LOTS of units.
As for the economies of Australia and India It wasn’t there per capita  but there Natural Resources that boost the UK economy. Don’t forget about all that middle Eastern Oil they control also. :)
DB- As for my total for the US, Adjust what ever territories you find appropriate to reach a US IPC level of 75 plus China’s 10 for a total of 85.

Since when does square mileage equal production?  Africa is bigger than Europe, and the UK controlled the majority of colonies there, yet that continent is worth only a fraction of Europe?  Heck, South America is close to Africa in IPCs. 
The US acheived it’s total is because of it’s large production abilities, that’s the way it was.

I beg to differ on what makes the UK playable in this game.  In my recollection, there is not one, (1) A/A game where the UK has the largest production of any nation.  And yet they seem to be playable in each and every version of the game.  The problem that the UK has in the world conflict games is that it must choose how to place forces in each theatre, if at all. They don’t get to have their cake and eat it too.  Even the US doesn’t get the material ability to fight a full scale war in each front, or for that matter not even Germany–if they did, we’d likely be speaking German.

Oh yeah, don’t forget Italy, and those vast stacks of 25 IPCs, which as you pointed out, still is less than the UK…?  Again, how can that work historically or balance wise?  I think you want too much from the UK.  This is a country that in 41 was getting slobbernockered  by Germany and was not the war machine that you want them to be here.  And how does one sweep through Africa?  It takes about 6 turns to get across it, taking 1-2 ipcs a turn, so the UK has what, 75, 73, 71, 69, 67 (oh hey, and here comes the overwhelming landings of the Americans into Normandy, if the british don’t get there by round 3).  10 ipcs from the UK to Italy in Africa does not give them the chance you seem to be thinking.  Right, right, right, the UK would have less if attacked from different places at the same time, but If I was the UK and had 75, 70, 60 ipcs for the first three turns, I am landing in Western Europe and with Russia banging through Poland, I don’t care about Africa.

Austraila announced in Dec. '41 that they looked to America for their hope and India didn’t even declare their support for the UK’s war until the end of the year.
  The natural resources of India and Austraila are nice and all, but did they have the people and the transport lanes to move enough to reach 75 in this game?  No, if that were the case Africa would be worth more than anything.  There are more natural resources untouched there than anywhere else in the world.

Regarding the natural resources of India:
With the massive demands of manpower for the British Indian Army fighting in European, African and Burmese theaters of war there was a shortage of able bodied men for agriculture. Further military restrictions (The British were afraid Bengali plains might fall into Japanese hands and prevented cultivation of border areas and also moved all rice stocks back towards Calcutta) as well as forced procurement of rice for the war effort in Europe led to sever food shortages culminating in the Bengal famine in 1942 in which an estimated 3 million to 7 million Indians are said to have perished. At the time this famine was considered as bad an atrocity as the Germans starvation of the Polish Jews and was in purely numerical terms a much larger catastrophe. It has been found that a number of images found in holocaust museums around the world as pictures of people starved to the bone are actually mislabeled photographs of Bengali civilians under British rule. In recent years the famine has been explained as a combination of a natural drought as well as the military restrictions but reliable records of whether there was any natural element to the famine are not be found.
With the British recruiting Indian soldiers in large numbers as well as the Japanese recruiting Indian expatriates into the Indian National Army (INA) a state of civil war existed on the east Indian border with Indians killing Indians. This in turn led to civilians who supported either the British or the INA rioting against each other.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front_during_World_War_II  and several books cited below above paragraph for sources.

you can also look at this page (mentioned previous post from Mark Harrion’s book) about production of munitions and fighting equipment, but I’ll post the real meat here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Artillery Production:
United States = 257,390
Germany = 159,147
United Kingdom = 124,877
Canada = 10,552
Other Commonwealth = 5,215

Mortars (over 60 mm)
United States = 105,050
United Kingdom = 102,950
Germany = 73,484
Commonwealth = 46,014

Machineguns
United States = 2,679,840
Germany = 674,280
United Kingdom = 297,336
Canada = 251,925
Other Commonwealth = 37,983

Military Aircraft
United States = 324,750
Germany = 189,307
United Kingdom = 131,549
Canada = 16,431
Other Commonwealth = 3,081

Coal-millions of metric tons
Germany = 2,420.3
United States = 2,149.7
United Kingdom = 1,441.2
Canada = 101.9

Iron Ore
United States = 396.9
Germany = 240.7
United Kingdom = 119.3
Canada = 3.6

Crude Oil
United States = 833.2
United Kingdom = 90.8
Germany = 33.4 (including 23.4 synthetic)
Canada = 8.4

Note, Commonwealth would include India and Austraila, so unless that smaller amount of people had some incredible work ethic to produce, they just did not make that much.  And those figures do not include Italy, nor Romania, Poland or Hungary for Germany.

@deepblue:

In the interest of world peace and to get this project moving again I will adopt DH’s IPC system.

If this is the way you are heading….

Then I would pose a question:
Is this possibly right?

@Deaths:

MY next Installment
UK=75 IPC’s

How could UK have 75 when USA has 75?

@Deaths:

United States= 75 IPC’s + China’s 10

I don’t like the idea of the Allies having such a vast lead in production over the Axis for sake of balance in game play, but it at least bears out historically, and when you put initial placements into it this can help as long as the Axis stays the aggressors that historically they were.
BUT
there is nothing that I know of historically that would lead me to believe that UK should be anywhere near the US level in 1941 for production.
I believe it was IL who has previously mentioned Mark Harrison’s work on WW2 in regards knowledge–here i found a table pulled from Harrison’s book “Economics of World War 2”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

It has, in billions, the GDP of countries.  in 1941 Germany had 412, with Austria and France added into Germany at 29 and 130 respectively, giving a total of 551.  The UK at the time had 344.  Now, I’m willing to bet that this isn’t including all the production of India and Austraila, though for France I bet it includes all the French colonies in Africa, so perhaps it does include some of the UK colonies. 
And I would find it hard to believe that the economies of Austraila and India really would have ballooned the UK much farther up.
Oh, and what it says for the US in 1941–1,094–Three times as much as the UK and over twice that of Germany.  Italy is even listed at 144, which is slightly less than half of the UK.
The point here being that the UK at 75 and Germany at 54 is a turnaround from history and IMHO is not good for balance and gameplay.  So what if UK gets smashed in Round 1, they have to if the Axis has any hope, and they have this behemoth of the USA to rescue them.

Berlin circle is great, leave it in, just put a factory north at the coast too for ship building.  No big deal.

@deepblue:

In the interest of world peace and to get this project moving again I will adopt DH’s IPC system.
I still feel that the Convoy Box system Imperious suggested would be a good addition, but without support for it I am no longer going to argue.

if you want support of the IPC system, i will lend mine to it.  i like the dynamic system IL lists and that in doing so, they are NOT added into the totals for the countries, only to taken away from.  –-which is opposite of DH’s ipc system.

@CraigBee:

Ocean Color Change Request:

Please remove some red from the ocean to make it look more blue.  I printed the Positronica map, and didn’t realize how purple looking the ocean was until it printed.  Examining the original ocean texture, I see a plenty of red.  I think if the red is toned down, the ocean will look more blue, which may be more attractive.

Craig

the red is from the blood man….

Nice,
    Another great project IL.

wow,  I’m out of it for a little while and… wow

@Deaths:

Whats the point in convoy boxes if they make no $.

–check out pages 22 and following, this was discussed quite a bit.

@deepblue:

Industrial Production Certificates (IPCs)

| A&A REVISED |
| | IPCs | % of World Total |
| US | 42 | 25% |
| UK | 30 | 18% |
| SU | 24 | 14% |
| Allied Total | 96 | 58% |
| |
| GER | 40 | 24% |
| JAP | 30 | 18% |
| Axis Total | 70 | 42% |
| |
| Total Diff | 16% |
| World Total IPCs | 166 |

| PROPOSED |
| | IPCs | % of World Total |
| US | 72 | 24% |
| UK | 51 | 17% |
| SU | 39 | 13% |
| Allied Total | 162 | 54% |
| |
| GER | 63 | 21% |
| JAP | 51 | 17% |
| ITA | 24 | 8% |
| Axis Total | 138 | 46% |
| |
| Total Diff | 8% |
| World Total IPCs | 300 |

I would say to go with the 250.  I’d like the 300, though it would extend the game, but just don’t like the idea of the US being able to drop 20+ INF a turn, and I don’t like to have to remember a bunch of rules that limit amounts of production for particular pieces per country.  If you need more pieces, buy them, and if you want a shorter game, play Classic.
  On the other hand, Lend Lease can play into it, though then the Soviets can perhaps drop multitudes of commies into the trenches…  So, Lend Lease is good, but the 250 still would be better.

I like following the percentages you had referenced from LH and AAR, definitely a good starting point without having to debate territory by territory, which would end up with even higher totals.  And basing whether this is good or not solely on playtesting at this point is going to give you skewed results based on incomplete rules and the house rules that will be factored in because people like them. 
All that being said about the numbers for countries, I am not a big fan of valueless land territories.  I can understand islands, but there are an awful lot of current valueless territories throughout central asia and that is already an 8 turn trip to Moscow for Japan at best, with half of that being of no added value.  Just in looking at the big picture and the current amounts, could it be feasible to at least make the current valueless territories have some value.  i mean, could there really be nothing there of use for a country’s warmachine?  men, metal, chemicals, food, supplies, chicks?  something…  making them 1 ipc each at least gives some meaning to defending abit. (this would add about 7 ipcs to Russia and 3/4 to China, couple to UK.  Anyhow, that may be a bit later in the discussion, but just my 2 cents at least, maybe it’s better to have them without value…

Yes on the convoy boxes not producing IPCs, bravo.

And on a delayed note, the Berlin circle v2 looks good, and I see no problem in having a factory for Germany in Berlin and in the Germany territory north of it for shipping.

@Adlertag:

@Imperious:

Look here… the guy is just starting out.

That is no excuse for not having any convoy zones

sure it is, just look at other companies, when microsoft started out, it had bugs through out it’s products…. wait a minute…uh, never mind.

@losttribe04:

I suppose you could they are a lot bigger some are almost 2’’ around. That’s a big INF unit though.

Sounds like somebody needs a bigger map to play…

MORE POWER!!! WaHoo!

Changing up the Baltic seazones, per Raider, I think is a good call.

I think you have to be careful with the airfields, if you go with historical aspects for it, you quickly end up with one on every seaside territory, Northern Africa for instance

Morocco–2 airfields near Mehdia, Morocco, 80 miles north of Casablanca
Northern Algeria–“Maison Blanche” airfield near Algiers
Tunis–Djeddeida, Tunisia airfields
Tripolitania–Castle Benito Airfield, near Tripoli
Cyrenaica–El Adam airfield, or El Adem

Personally, I am not too big on the whole port/airfield concept.  I think they add to the game in smaller theatre operations like AAP, but not so much in a global map.  The US dropping troops into southern Europe in 2 turns does not scream, “possible chance of an Axis win to me”.
  I would suggest to consider restricting airfields to island territories; midway, solomons, malta, crete, even azores or London if you are going to have them.

Deepblue,

map’s looking good.  Do you have any goals for the next week on it?