Posts made by PainState

@wittmann:

That is good to hear.
Happy gaming both of you.

This is a dreadful outcome for this thread. Both parties kiss and make up and wish each other…… (PainState reaches for the closest vomit bag).

@djensen:

Curtmungus, if you continue with this language and attitude, then you will be banned for 1 week. Tone it down and stop with the giant fonts.

Hold on, what is this?

Lets break this down.

The Lord Curtmungus is being warned OR ELSE, it seems.

So the infractions are language, attitude and large fonts.

Lets deal with language. So, using the slang term for the male anatomy of testicle’s is a abuse of language on the forum? Granted I have not read the user agreement on what is acceptable and not acceptable use of the English language. I just assumed that use of slang words for human anatomy was not out of bounds on the forums. Maybe crude and shows a lack of vocabulary but not a ban, I could be wrong, most likely Iam wrong.

Now to the claim of attitude. I personally like Curtmungus’s over the top attitude. It amuses me to no end and gives me a glimpse into the type of player he is. I relish in his attitude for I to agree with him. If we are going to play this game lets have some fun, play with huge attitudes and roll some freaking dice and see where the carnage leads us. Getting banned because your attitude makes other posters and readers of the forums tremble in fear or get offended, well, mmmmm. snowflakes? wimps? pansies?

Now on to Large fonts. It is very obvious Curtmungus speaks with a very loud voice. He is obviously not a meek man or speaks in whispers. He wants every one to know what he says when he speaks for it has vast insight and knowledge. Since we are not speaking face to face the only way to show that in the written word is in large, very large font. Once again I will defer to my nature that I do not mind posters posting in large font. It shows their passion and their love for this game. Banning a poster for writing in large font is insane and borderline fascist?

Now that I made my impassioned defense of Curtmungus I will offer one rebuke so the Curtmungus can avoid future run in’s with the Gold Cloaks on the forum boards. Stop using ! to make your point. We get it. You are yelling like a berserker after drinking a case of beer with your large fonts. No need to double down and give a ! or the dreaded !!!.

I prefer Queso cheese.

Oh

Cheese tactics to win the game?

Cheese tactics can be overcome very easily by experienced Allied players who recognize what is going on in the early part of the game, turn 1-4.

@Gargantua:

Great concept.

But it would be too easy for both parties to stall and drag things out 25 turns.  Trust me, I would.  And there are plenty of games that go into the 30+ turn range on the forum that are absolute epics.  Why take away awesome part of the game away?

Well, let me put some context into this idea.

#1 This is for your average table top game that run’s with your friends over a long session of games, 4-6 turns a game night. In my group we usually average around 4 turns a game session before we have to quit. So, the theory is the game will end after around 5-6 game sessions, based of course how that specific game is going.

#2 Hey, I love Axis players who refuse to give up and fight to the bitter end. Then again how many of them do you know? Willing to play another 3-4 weeks of real life game time to finish a game that WILL end in their demise?  (This is really the “root” of why on Table Top matches the Axis just concede once they are put on a pure defensive posture, they want to save time)

I think having a finite end to the game creates tension for both sides. This is good, this is a game and not a simulation of real life. Tension in games is what makes games fun.

Now to the idea that Axis play to stall out the game until the 25th turn. Well, that is a tactic they could perform. Then again it dramatically changes up all the tactics of A&A that we talk about on the forums. The Axis are not going all out for a win on either map in the first 12 turns. Which is the default setting for the Axis. Now, they are being more guarded, coming up with new tactics to stall any Allied ‘gains’ across the board. For some groups this might be a good idea to introduce a fresh look at the game. The Axis at the end of turn 10 think their chances are real slim to win might change up their tactics and go more defensive and see if the Allies notice this and start to march towards taking out the Axis.

Using a variant VP system besides the OOB rules is one way to go. This idea is designed to be used with the OOB rules for how either side wins the game.

This idea is not good for a lot of Table Top groups, that is fine. I do think though that for some groups having a 25 turn max on the game will provide some drama in the closing turns of the game as the Allies are going all out to finish off the Axis instead of sitting around building Strat bombers and slow playing the end game.

@ShadowHAwk:

I did not delete my thread, dont know where it went.

And you did no pitch in at all you just posted some random stuff that was not related to the post.

Your thread got moved over by an admin to the Global variant discussion thread.

I think the main problem with Axis and Allies and most WWII games is that there is no end point.

The game is totally focused on can the Allies stall, then stop and turn the Axis to the point that the Allies are on the offensive and the Axis powers are totally defensive.

Thus the end point of the game is when the Allies finally turn the Axis into a defensive posture and then they concede.

I think that is a waste. Force the Allies to conquer the Axis powers and seal the deal so to speak.

Under the current rules the Allies once they get the Axis on the defense and pushing them back there is no time limit on the conquest on the Axis. They can drag it out for over 30 turns, conquering the entire globe and slow playing their killing blows.

The Axis are under the “gun” to finish the war off IF they do not achieve success in Russia/middle East or on the Pacific map by X amount of turns. Well the  Axis are toast and cannot win the game if they do not achieve these goals in under X turns.

Make the Allies feel the same pressure of being under the gun. Once they turn the war to their favor, lets say on turn 12, if the game only last 25 turns the Allies then only have 13 turns to win the game. If the Allies do not achieve victory by the end of the 25th turn the game is called a draw.

This give the Axis players a reason to keep playing, instead of just calling the game off and sulking into a dark corner, drinking beer and lamenting about dice. Also the Allied players have some hope they will have some fun on the offensive. Lets face it, if you are a Allied player all you get to experience is defensive play and once your master plan bears some fruit of success the Axis concede and go on a 2 day binge drinking fest.

Make the game a 25 turn game. If no one achieves victory by the OOB rules it is called a draw.

What do you guys think?

I think if you want to create a lot a tension in the game to make bold moves and win the game that if no one achieves OOB victory conditions by the end of Turn 20 it is called as a DRAW game.

I think the main problem with Axis and Allies and most WWII games is that there is no end point.

The game is totally focused on can the Allies stall, then stop and turn the Axis to the point that the Allies are on the offensive and the Axis powers are totally defensive.

Thus the end point of the game is when the Allies finally turn the Axis into a defensive posture and then they concede.

I think that is a waste. Force the Allies to conquer the Axis powers and seal the deal so to speak.

Under the current rules the Allies once they get the Axis on the defense and pushing them back there is no time limit on the conquest on the Axis. They can drag it out for over 30 turns, conquering the entire globe and slow playing their killing blows.

The Axis are under the “gun” to finish the war off IF they do not achieve success in Russia/middle East or on the Pacific map by X amount of turns. Well the  Axis are toast and cannot win the game if they do not achieve these goals in under X turns.

Make the Allies feel the same pressure of being under the gun. Once they turn the war to their favor, make it that the game only last 25 turns. If the Allies do not achieve victory by the end of the 25th turn the game is called a draw.

This give the Axis players a reason to keep playing, instead of just calling the game off and sulking into a dark corner, drinking beer and lamenting about dice. Also the Allied players have some hope they will have some fun on the offensive. Lets face it, if you are a Allied player all you get to experience is defensive play and once your master plan bears some fruit of success the Axis concede and go on a 2 day binge drinking fest.

Make the game a 25 turn game. If no one achieves victory by the OOB rules it is called a draw.

What do you guys think?

Re Roll Battle?

At the heart of the matter is the concept that if the Axis or Allies fail, in the critical attacks we have determined are critical,  in the first 1-2 turns that the entire war is pre determined by our master plans and thus no need to continue, reset the board and start again.

SO

The concept of reroll….in order to avoid just resetting the board at turn 1 and starting again is 100% based on the concept of predetermined opening moves and IF they do not go off as planned the entire war is over.

Thus

We should just ditch this game and go play chess that requires no dice.

OR

We should just join in the lamentations of the Axis players as the German/Japan opening turn did not go off in a fabulous manner and now they are depressed and no longer want to play this stupid game based on 6 sided dice. Just give in to them and rest the board until the desired dice outcomes make them happy.

Hell with it. Start the game at the USA turn 1 and just let Germany/Japan place their units in there declared combat areas and leave it up to them what would be a reasonable CAS rate on their units and take them off.

FINALLY

Do the Allies get a reroll on turn 9 when they make their critical attack into Europe to cripple and eventually destroy Germany on Turn 12… do the Allies get a reroll? Cant really restart the game. To bad so sad for the ALLIES? OF course many would say if the Allies are on turn 8-10 and making the big push into Germany the game is lost any ways and why are we playing this stupid game anyways? Axis concede and we reset to play another game.

Why not just make the Victory conditions then that if Germany has not conquered Russia by turn 7 and Japan does not have a out right VC victory by turn 10 on the Pacific map, we should just pick up the game board and reset?

@Gargantua

Well, there is a difference in the dynamic now between Germany/Italy.

Under the current turn order…Germany/Russia/Italy. The dynamic is the relationship between Russia’s response to Germany and then Italy can react off of Russia. They (Italy) can perform a very effective response attack based on Russian actions which will (can open) for Germany at the top of the next turn.

IF we change it to

Russia/Germany/Italy…Then Germany/Italy lose the ability to tag team Russia based on what Russia does on that specific turn. The dynamic now is can Germany create a situation tactically (can open) for Italy to exploit and force a Russian reaction move (at the top of the next turn) to Italy so that Germany can take advantage on their following turn based on Russia’s turn.  It is a subtle change, which is why your idea is a good one BUT it is a change tactically on how you approach the invasion and eventual conquest of Russia.

I think in the end that is why it is such a good idea. It only really changes the dynamic on the Russian front, some could say it gives a slight edge to Russia on their defense coupled with it does not change anything else going on in the game.

For our group I like the idea because now the two main Axis powers move at the same time which saves time. We have talked in our group on how to group up the Allies in such a way that a Allied Eruope power and a Pacific Allied power are moving at the same time to once again save time. The only hang up is when rare situations arise when turn order is important if there will be interaction between the two maps, albeit, they show up later in the game.

I think is a very good idea and here are the reasons why.

#1 For table top play it reduces time to play each turn if you have lets say 4 players +. The German and Japan player can play their turn at the same time. In our group it takes Germany/japan around 10-15 minutes to play their turns each. So, if they play at the same time you can save 10-15 minutes of game time right there. Do that for the first 4 turns as an example and you just sped up the game almost 1 hour +.

#2 It does not change game balance in the overall strategy/tactics of the game. What it does change though is that Italy can no longer “can open” for Germany, Germany now has to “can open” for Italy. That is a tactical change to the game that will effect some of the tactical approaches to the game when it comes to the invasion of Russia. Is that bad? No, it will force experienced players to just adjust and come up with new tactics for Germany/Italy and Russia. It is never bad to have experienced players looking at the game in a “new” way and how to react to the change, that is what makes the game fun.

For table top play any changes that increases the pace of the game in terms of how many minutes/hours to play turns is a big deal. This saves time in the overall picture of the game and thus I think #1 is a very good point.

I do not think option #2 will change the game if Experienced players are playing Russia/Germany/Italy. It will just change up the dynamic of the game in tactical terms with out effecting the game in a meaningful strategic way.

Now I will add one more change to “chew” on.

The OP’s change was driven by the desire to reduce the time of turns. This idea does not decrease the time of turns but puts a twist on the Allied side of who “can opens” between the USA and the UK.

Have the UK go before the USA will then force the UK to ‘can open’ for the USA instead of how it works right now which is the opposite. The theory is if we are going to change up the Axis thinking on the Europe map by moving Russia ahead of Germany, which effects the Italy/Germany tandem, you will get the same effect of having the UK move right before the USA.

Just a thought.

For our next match I think I will talk to my group and we will try this idea and see how it works and let you guys know. Iam focused on does it actually reduce the amount of time to play a turn and is it noticeable?

Well when talking about realities of this game. These are just top level ideas to formulate a plan of attack. It also depends on your point of view.

Looking back at the 3 realities I posted they make perfect sense from a Allies POV.

Looking at JDOW’s 3 realities they make perfect sense from a Axis POV.

Regardless of your POV there are 2 BIG realities of the game that can not be denied.

#1 The Russian Front is the most important aspect of the game. Which ever side prevails has the upper hand and then 2-3 turns later the losing side most likely concedes defeat.

#2 Japan based on how well they are doing seriously dictates the response from the Allies, mainly the USA.

So, you could say that Germany is the driving force in the entire game. IF they are doing well in Russia then the Allies are forced to deal with that threat, how ever they can. Which then opens up Japan to go crazy and seal the deal, so to speak.

Some could argue that Japan is the driving force in the game and puts the Allies in a pickle on how to stop a ever growing Japan that is pulling in 70+ IPC a turn, thus allowing Germany to focus almost 100% on Russia.

BUT

These are just top level Realities of the game. You then need to develop strategies and turn by turn tactics to stop these 2 realities from happening for the Allies to win.

In the end the Axis powers are the driving force in the game. The 2 realities of the game, as laid out above, are the context of the entire war. How do the Allies stop them from achieving these overall goals?

Well, yeah, French navy mops up in this respect. Italy can either attack their navy or not. If they attack the French then in the ideal scenario they deliver some hits and further weaken the Italian navy.

OR

Italy does not attack the French fleet and then the French get the option of attacking or not. If they attack the remains of the Italian fleet + what ever Italy purchased for navy and get some hits in, well, the French did their job mopping up as much as they could.

So, in less both the French and Italians wimp out and do not attack each other the French will have one chance to inflict as much naval pain as they can.

It seems that it is a 100% must for UK to perform the raid and have the French mop up. Is this true IYO?

Italy has 3 FTR in Western Germany. British Bombers come in to strat bomb the factory.

can the Italian FTRS intercept?

@Cow:

Bruh why send USA to Norway when you can dump 20 inf a turn on Spain?

Well, I have no clue. Most of the online guides and stuff on this site do not promote a USA Spanish beach head strategy. They focus on a Norway Strat bomber/Russian beach head tactic in Norway.

Spanish Beachhead has it pros/cons just like the Norway Beachhead Pros/cons.

Now the idea of dumping 20 INF a turn. USA has a 5 TRS convoy from Eastern USA and the British have a 5 TRS convoy set up from England. So every turn the 20 TRS are dumping INF into Spain. How early in the game can the Allies set up this plan?  Turn 6? Turn 7?

Further more, just dumping INF into Spain does not present a offensive threat. At what point do they go on the offense?