Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Navalland
    3. Posts
    N
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 9
    • Posts 89
    • Best 9
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by Navalland

    • RE: How Can We Incentivize the US to Split its Effort Between Atlantic and Pacific?

      @Argothair

      -Assigning 1ipc values to the Pacific Islands would certainly help and encourage Japan to invade them but I doubt USA will try to retake them. For balance purpose, Japan has to start with significantly bigger fleet than the Allies. It requires minimum 15 ipc (transport+destroyer) just to invade one of the island with a protection. Even if Japan lose some of them, she is still capable of compensating these loses with another conquests. While if USA just ignores Japan, the huge Japanese fleet lose its all combat value suddenly for a long time.

      -Yes, the capital rule does not make sense. Nations should be able to collect income and mobilize units even if their capitals are fallen. Also no losing all of incomes when capital is lost.

      -That’s why I think Germany is too weak and Japan is absurdly too strong in A&A games which should have been the other way around and it results Germany just spamming infantry and waiting Japan ro rescue. It makes no sense. Historically by far the strongest Axis country should not have badly needed Japan’s and Italy’s helps to just stay even alive. This aspects also encourage USA to go only one front since if Uk-Russia is strong enough to defeat Germany-Italy. USA could choose to go Pacific only to just secure the British colonies but still no two ocean going USA unfortunately.

      -Ipc vaules are known very abstract but still it would look very weird if these Pacific islands worth more than 1 except Hawaii. For example Australia was obviously a lot more than twice valuable than Guinea yet having Australia just twice valuable than Guinea is somewhat justifiable for playability but Australia cannot be same with Guinea. It would totally negate all WWII feelings as much as the Japanese tanks storming Moscow.
      If Guinea becomes 2 then Australia should be minimum 4, India 5 or 6, South Africa 3, Egypt 3, Hawaii 2 etc.

      -Having both Indian and Australian factories can actually help Japan more then Allies since if Japan concantrated southwest Pacific with East Indies Factories, UK might find itself spending more money than Japan in this area to just defend these factories because the Japanese units will be in range in both factories simultaneously considering USA needs 2 rounds to reinforce Australia.That’s why I’am fine with Indian factory but not with Australian factory.

      -A solid way preventing USA going Pacific only is making UK-Russia doomed to fall without strong US assist in Europe. Preventing USA going only Atlantic is uhm… well I do believe not possible in A&A maps with its rules and cost structures. Totally needs redrawings, revaluings, new rules and costings.

      -Expensive ships discourage naval investments for both sides when fighters just do well better than them with similar costs. Destroyer is too expensive for even mimic infantry abilities on sea such as blocking, baiting, deadzoning etc. Of course reducing ship costs do not magically create two ocean going USA, it is just one of the indispensible condition to achieve that. The expensive ships also reason too why Germany and Russia don’t build navy either.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less

      @Imperious-Leader I have read even in Larry Harris Gen-con Setup set up, some people still give Allies 6 bid what do you think?

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: How Can We Incentivize the US to Split its Effort Between Atlantic and Pacific?

      @Argothair

      Lets summarize the reasons why USA always goes Atlantic only.

      1. Easier to defeat Germany first and ignore Japan
      2. Easier to mass bombing Germany
      3. Germany initially possesses bigger threat than Japan
      4. Germany has no enogh money for air coverage unlike Japan.
      5. More and easily reachable money via Atlantic rather than Pacific.
      6. USA is almost alone in the Pacific while heavily accompanied by UK in Atlantic
      7. Japan starts with bigger fleet than USA
      8. Ships are expensive, less flexible and don’t bring money. Totally opposite of ground units.
      9. Cheaper option of keeping California with mass infantries.
      10. Japan’s ability to outproduce USA even if USA goes fully Pacific.
      11. Combine power’s superiority over the dispersed ones.

      The tons of solid reasons really cannot be reversed inside of classic A&A rules and costings because they will always outweight and discourage USA to split its forces.

      Assigning 1ipc each of Pacific islands would have no effect to change the course of war. We would still stuck forever to the boring Japanese armour blitz in Central Asia, Germany turns into survival mod to wait Japan rescue by taking Moscow,. USA establishing a pipeline through North Africa.

      -Australia factory isn’t needed, it just turns Japan into “take now or never be able to take” mod. Instead I would suggest making USA closer to Australia. Also its no fun because UK would buy nothing other than infantry and they will be unable to effectively participate Pacific campaigns.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: How Can We Incentivize the US to Split its Effort Between Atlantic and Pacific?

      @Argothair I am absolutely certain that its impossible to courage USA to go both oceans with just small ipc edits or some house rules. It totally requires new units, new rules, new drawings and new national balances.

      Requirements:

      • Make Germany/USA stronger and Japan weak as much as possible.

      -Reduce ship costs as much as possible (destroyer cost becomes 4-5ipc) while maintaning air unit’s somewhat usefulness against air and reducing their costs and rebalancing between ground and air units.

      -Make California-Sydney distance 2 and no Australia factory.

      -Open Mongolia, cooperation between Russian and Chinese units will discourage Japan to stemroll Central Asia.

      -Give Russia Asian factories protected by some valueless territories serving as speed bump. You can give Russia special units to mobilize in this factories.

      -If there is no harbour, make sure having no more than 4 sea zones between Japan and USA.

      -Britain must start with Indian factory or factories. Open up a route from India to China hence making possible to cooperations between them in area. Also Making Russia suitable to send help India in urgency.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less

      @Imperious-Leader which set up do 1942 online players mostly prefer?

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: Behind the Urals: 1942.2 Russian starting Factory Rule

      The whole problem lies on Japan’s absurd overpowerness. No matter what house rules are present, Japan will always take Soviet far east and China. Allies have nothing to prevent it.

      Why Japan’s role is always trying to rescue Germany via marching to Moscow? Why Japan always outproduce Germany and USA? It is neither fun, nor historical plus it totally deprives Pacific front and two ocean going approaches for USA.

      Typically USA esablish a pipelines in North Africa while abandons Pacific, Britain in N.Russia, Germany turning into surviving mod waiting Japan to recue. I’m really sick of to see the same thing.

      The solution is make Germany 2 times stronger than Japan considering 1942 borders, make Soviet far eastern and Chinese territories less valuable (Making two territory worth 1 with Nos), Hawaii factory with 2ipc value, then rebalancing.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: 1942 3rd edition map thoughts

      I was referring to @Black_Elk 's project.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: 1942 3rd edition map thoughts

      What happened the idea that islands should not be surrounded by only one sea zone?

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

      I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively)

      I use a bit different set up in my games. Bombers do well at strategic bombing while still keeping other options.

      inf 1/2/1 3Pu AA
      art 2/2/1 4Pu AA +1 attack bonus to infantry
      arm 3/3/2 5Pu AA blitz

      fig 2/2/4 5Pu 2 air at 3 air def
      bom 2/1/6 6Pu 2 air at, strategic bomber

      sub 2/1/2 4Pu
      tra 0/0/0 5Pu
      des 2/2/2 6Pu
      cru 3/3/2 9Pu AA bombard 3
      car 1/2/2 12Pu AA
      b.s 4/4/2 16Pu AA bombard 4 2HP

      trench 0/1/0 3Pu 2HP, repair, only one can be placed per territory per round.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

      How much bid do you give Allies in 1942.2?

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively)

      I prefer having one multipurpose unit instead of two specialized units.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

      I like new type of units only if they are absolutely needed and bring somethings to the table which other units couldn’t. I wouldn’t really want 2 type of cruisers just sake of history, I didn’t even find particularly useful introducing mechanized inf, and tactical bombers.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

      I liked the idea making cruiser 10ipc and Battleship 18ips. Did it significantly change the purchases in games?

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively)

      I was extensively considering this idea and concluded that having a unit serving to only one purpose is a bad idea. It means less flexibility and more predictability.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: 1942 0r 1939?

      Neither for different reasons.

      1939 Starting date imho is pointless because we all know that Norway, Western Europe and Balkans will have to fall and Italy has to join the Axis for Balance purpose. It offers players very little other than constantly repeating almost the same historical outcomes from 1939-1941.

      1942 date is not good either because the most interesting parts (Barbarossa/Japanese Expansion) are passed and left the players very little options.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less

      If fighter and bomber remain the same then destroyer cost should absolutely not be decreased. Cruiser could be either 10 or 11, but 10 ipc could make battleship very bad unit.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: Larry Harris Semi-Official Tournament Game Patch

      Do most people still give Allies 6 bid even after this patch?

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      N
      Navalland
    • RE: 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less

      Decreasing naval unit costs are good, but its stand alone horrible idea since it totally negate all air coverage tactics especially for Germany. Air units should always have overall upper hands against naval units.

      Air unit costs should be decreased in this case which will cause an unbalance between air and ground units.

      posted in House Rules
      N
      Navalland
    • 1 / 1