Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. prodigenius
    3. Posts
    P
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 2
    • Posts 37
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by prodigenius

    • RE: France survives turn 1, what now?

      @Caesar:

      @wittmann:

      And America isn’t? It had 7 Carriers and 17  Battleships in late 1941, yet when the game begins it has one of each.
      And Japan starting with 21 Air, is realistic as hell too.

      Yes but US can’t get knocked out of the game with a land invasion that can begin on turn 1.

      A lot of major powers can get knocked out of the game if they’re focussed down.  That’s the basis of many strategies, including Sealion, Calcutta Crush, KGF, KJF, as well as going hard vs Moscow.  So not sure that should be the bellwether :)

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Allied Strategy- London Calling

      Once you realize that what a player could do is so much more threatening than what they actually do, the game changes.  Why is a stack of bombers so good?  Why does the Axis feel so overpowered at the beginning? It’s all about power projection, and to an extent, forcing responses.

      As Germany once you commit to a non-mobile force, your power projection plummets.  If you drop 70IPCs into TTs G2, the range of moves you can do diminishes greatly.  The more Germany can do on its opening turns that threatens both London and Moscow the better.  This is why the 2-bomber opening is so good, as are variations where you buy only 1 bomber and save or save everything.  Those bombers can either bomb London, or hit the Eastern front.  These moves force UK to not play greedy, and still lets every IPC turn around and hit Moscow.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Sealion defense after J1 DOW?

      @PainState:

      @zergxies:

      Besides liberation, one of the other reasons J1 and SL don’t mix well is that the US can get a fighter and 1+ bombers over to London before G3 easily.� � With the amount of fodder on London the fighter alone will probably take out 2-3 German aircraft.

      Usually on a J1 Attack that is against UK/ANZAC and not USA.

      This is a key point.

      IF Japan J1’s against only UK/ANZAC then USA is still neutral until the start of their production phase, which they can then declare war. This is very important because the USA cannot non combat troops/air power forward into UK territory until they are officially at war…that happens on USA1 during production. Which mean USA units cannot enter UK territories unit USA2 non combat phase.

      IF that is the scenario, USA can not arrive in UK until USA3, which will be to late if there is a G3 Sea Lion in effect.

      Once again I will stress this point.

      Japan/Germany have this tug and pull on the first 2 turns. Japan is the key nation when it comes to Sea Lion and the USA response.

      Japan goes J1 and declares war on the USA…Sea Lion is off the table, that is the bottom line. If you are the Germany player you need to dust off that G2 against Russia plan of attack.

      *** Foot Note ***

      Let me clarify and be clear for new players on this point.

      IF japan declares war on the USA on Turn 1. What that means is two fold.

      #1 USA can now non combat move into any allied country on both the Euro/Pacific map. USA declares war on the Euro Axis powers at the start of the USA1 production phase.

      #2 USA Production ramps up to full war status on USA1.

      USA can get 1 FTR and 1 STR bomber into England on USA 2 for the FTR.

      USA builds 3 FTRS on USA1.

      USA2 3 FTRS fly to Gibraltur.

      USA3 3 FTRS are in London.

      You have now forced Germany to go into London on a G3 invasion or it is all over.

      *** Side note ***

      I hope your Japan partner is not a friend because some German players will come unglued on a J1 against USA.

      Just letting you know.

      :lol: 8-) :-D :evil:

      This isn’t a rule I was familiar with.  I tried it in TripleA and it’s totally fine with US declaring war US1 after a J1 against UK and Anzac, and in non-combat moving a fighter to iceland.  Is this rule not implemented in TripleA?

      Regardless most J1s I’ve seen involve taking the Philippines as you have the units, deny a bonus, and benefit from the mobility the naval base grants.  But to your point, it’s not required I suppose :)

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Sealion defense after J1 DOW?

      Besides liberation, one of the other reasons J1 and SL don’t mix well is that the US can get a fighter and 1+ bombers over to London before G3 easily.  With the amount of fodder on London the fighter alone will probably take out 2-3 German aircraft.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq

      @Caesar:

      It’s all trial by fire anyways. I once tried to take Iraq as USSR without an airforce and all three Iraqi divisions destroyed USSR.

      That’s basically canon, if 40 years too early :P

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Why not Egypt first?

      @Requester45:

      If you watch GHG you will see that he has outlined a strategy called “Middle Earth” in which the UK uses South Africa, Egypt, and Persia to transport large amounts of infantry around. When Germany can spawn units in Egypt and use them to hit Iraq and Persia, leaving at least one of them for Italy, it creates a great deal of frustration for the allies. Once Germany has Egypt, they can use transports to move onto South Africa, and soon the Axis powers will own all of Africa and the Middle East, taking full advantage of the “Middle Earth” strategy only from an Axis perspective. It is a deadly strategy.

      Of course Germany going hard against Egypt would be good against Middle Earth.  GHG’s Middle Earth is designed to play effectively against the more “standard” play of Germany going hard against Russia, where the UK needs to find ways to make progress against Italy and help Russia.  If a player commits/copies a strategy while ignoring what their opponent is doing, they’re not going to do very well :)

      FWIW I’ve played building in S France and it generates some very fun games!  Point is not that it’s bad, but when discussing it to bring up those weaknesses as well :)

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Why not Egypt first?

      this conversation doesn’t really go anywhere when one argument is essentially “Germany can do ALL the things!” and the other argument is “good luck with that”.

      obviously having africa NOs is a good thing.  but if you’re advocating spending 30+ IPCs of German money in the med, and there are 2 turns of the german air force is a non-factor in Russia, and you’re not buying Italian can-openers you are undeniably going to have a weaker Russian push especially during G3 and G4.

      I’d be more convinced if you can show that what Germany gives up in Russia is outweighed by what it gains in the UK.  I’m not saying it can’t, but you can’t just look at the pros of a strategy and tout its effectiveness without comparing it to others out there.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Burma Airbase

      @taamvan:

      The carrier “swap” would only work if the carriers started in SZ 38, the other distances are too far to “shuttle bomb” (my name for that swap).  Unless you have the air base, or more carriers.

      So J1 you move your carriers to 36, J2 to 38/41 to block 37 getting blocked :) Both of those SZs support a swap on J3.

      @taamvan:

      With no mobile units to start, how could UK take Yunnan?  It just cant get there until later in the game to threaten it.

      So if UK moves its initial units to Berma on UK1, and then Japan is taking Yunnan on J1 and retaking it on J2, those Berma units would be easily enough to take Yunnan on UK2, right?

      @taamvan:

      The J2 is what is stopped by the blocker.  On J2, Japan can move to SZ 39 at peace, so it just ignores the blockers.  Then you’d use the UK/ANZAC trick, we hope.  J3 is impossible to stop, but it just wont work because there is no landing place (Burma, Ceylon) for the bulk of the fighters.

      J3 is impossible to stop if you do this, but the 3 TTs you build on J1 will be at your SZ36 Naval Base on J2, and rely on SZ37 being open to participate.  And if UK is at peace UK2, there’s nothing stopping him from moving a DD to SZ37.  Isn’t the point of the initial transports that you’re hitting Calcutta with 12 land units instead of 6 in front of all of that air power?  Seems like a much more IPC-favorable battle.

      @taamvan:

      The best move is to get 6 men into Burma, in a way that UK wont attack (because he is afraid of defending short), then get 6 MORE men the next round, so you double the transports ability too.  This only works 1 time because of the limited number of ground troops the Japanese have in that area to start, unless you slow down the whole plan in general to a J3.

      I didn’t quite understand the part about doubling the transport ability, but I think you’re referring to using the initial TTs to take Burma J2, right?  That move puts pressure on Calcutta while making sure you keep the Yunnan landing zone.  How can those TTs be reused though, I only see the 2 units in Siam that can get in position for that?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Burma Airbase

      I’ve been reading more about the J3 Calcutta Crush.  I like what Cow’s saying about not getting the air base and doing the carrier swap to “just” get 12 planes to India.  It’s not that the AB is useless, but 15 IPCs isn’t nothing and I’m not seeing how it’s necessary.

      It seems the J3 attack is effectively stopped if on UK2 the UK puts up a blocker in 37, or if the UK declares war and takes back Yunnan, taking away the planes’ landing spot.  The latter option has the downside of being an unprovoked DOW, so it seems a UK SZ37 blocker is a simple counter.

      For Japan, then, could they declare war J2 on the UK to make sure that no blockers get into position, while not losing Yunnan, and have good odds at a successful India capture on J3?

      If UK emptied Burma on UK1, then you don’t have to worry about Yunnan getting retaken.  Your fleet can move towards India, preventing blockers, and the 2 transports in SZ36 might even be able to safely take Sumatra and/or Java and still be in position for a J3 Calcutta strike.  If UK stacked Burma on UK1, Japan might have just enough to take Yunnan with your Hunan troops, 2 of the units brought down J1, and a stack of planes, do a strafe of Szechwan if necessary, and also take the 2 TTs brought down J1 to take 1 inf 1 tank and the 2 inf in Siam to hit Burma with the rest of the planes?  Burma could easily be taken back, but key would be that Yunnan was safe, and UK couldn’t block a J3 Calcutta hit with at least 3 loaded TTs and 14 planes.

      Another benefit of the J2 is you can strat bomb the factory for a turn.

      With this, you’d leave Hong Kong and Malaya for later.  Sure UK would make bank collecting income after its second turn… but that’s going to immediately go into Japan’s pocket after Calcutta is sacked.

      Anyway, this seems pretty obvious, so there is likely some simple counters I’m not seeing.  If nothing else, it seems like this would force UK Pac to play incredibly conservatively UK1, without sending the troops, ships, and planes to Africa that I see a lot of games.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Method for Estimating the Outcomes of Large Battles

      @Kreuzfeld:

      @ShadowHAwk:

      Thing is that the force composition is very important. But it is not in your calculation that i can see.

      It is in the calculation. He does give a 5-10& increase. However, this is an interesting point. Most players overestimate the value of forcesomposition and hiters, as compared to fodder. This is why they buy so many tanks, an no where near enough mechs as germany. This is also why they don’t build about 40% Subs in their battlefleet in the pacific (assuming you are strong enough against a force without DDs). Ususally, subs is the most costeffective unit to buy for defence.

      Thanks, ya that was only a small section in the otherwise lengthy post.  Mostly for 2 reasons - I had no real explanation for the numbers, other than that I modeled tens of thousands of battles and these had the “best fit”.  Your 2 examples show basically a similar result. Secondly, the impact was so relatively small, when skews are similar you can honestly ignore it most of the time.

      @Kreuzfeld:

      Most players overestimate the value of forcesomposition and hiters, as compared to fodder. This is why they buy so many tanks, an no where near enough mechs as germany. This is also why they don’t build about 40% Subs in their battlefleet in the pacific (assuming you are strong enough against a force without DDs). Ususally, subs is the most costeffective unit to buy for defense.

      I think this is the most interesting part.  It’s very counter-intuitive to me and I really have to think about this during the buy phase.

      posted in Player Help
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Method for Estimating the Outcomes of Large Battles

      Thanks so much for all of your interest and comments on this!

      @calvinhobbesliker:

      Note that ix^2 and jy^2 are the metapowers of each side, respectively.

      Yup! It’s pretty intuitive though was fun to work through it.  Let me know if you find anything about the number of rounds - this source said the following: itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/pfeng/teaching/Lanchester Equation for MAT 5932.ppt

      rounds = 1 / (2 sqrt( α * β )) *  ln( (1 + B/A sqrt( α / β) ) / (1 - B/A sqrt( α / β) ))

      • Derivation left as an exercise to the reader.

      Now, that formula doesn’t count non-homogeneous compositions.  I highly doubt there’s a closed form solution there.  Also, that calculation you’re definitely not doing in your head!

      @ShadowHAwk:

      OP asumes forces of equal strength where this is not the case in A&A, it only works if you are attacking with (for example )art vs inf because both have attack/defence of 2 ( there are other combinations but they are all unrealistic )

      Not sure if you’re referring to my post here, but I’m certainly not assuming homogeneous compositions or forces of equal strength.  I start with a simple scenario just to show that my derivation isn’t coming out of thin air, but I go on to show how heterogeneous compositions work, and I include examples…

      @Kreuzfeld:

      “What is the minimum ‘power’ needed to win an attack”.

      You could use metapower here for this, if you calculate theirs and see how much you’d need to send in. One issue is that metapowers don’t add together, so they’re clunky to tinker with.  This is sort of the nature of the problem though - 2 forces combined really do better than the sum of their parts.

      I haven’t done any analysis to see if you can determine a % victory rather than an avg number of units; I somewhat suspect that you’d need a simulator for that. I find for large battles it tends to be “everything I have” just because each additional unit to a close and large battle results in a huge TUV swing.

      @Ozymandiac:

      Interesting difference between your ideas is that HolKann claims the number of units is more important than the power; while your calculations show metapower is a multiplication of power and the number of units so they are symmetrically important.

      I think my results support HolKann’s.  Given that metapower = units * power = units^2 * avg(power), I think it’s safe to say that the number of units is more important metapower than power is, and in fact, this shows you how much more important it is.  And also how skew doesn’t add much :)

      I like the term skew much more than distribution; I spent forever trying to come up with a better word and this eluded me!

      @ShadowHAwk:

      For F2F games the best thing you could do is.
      Count number of hitpoints
      Count nummer of attacking/defending point.

      If your at the table you dont want to spend 30 minutes with a pen/paper and a calculator to determine your odds you want to do a quick check.

      The 2 things you suggest counting are the 2 parts of the metapower.  Multiplying them together shouldn’t take 30 minutes and a pencil and paper :)

      If you have more units and more power, you’ll likely win. If you have fewer units and less power you’ll likely lose.  It’s the cases in-between where things get interesting and metapower can help there.

      That said, I have no doubt that with the number of games you’ve played that the heuristics/gut you have does fine as well, and with less math!

      And of course, it goes without saying that odds and numbers don’t win games.  If a battle is your best path to victory, the odds don’t matter!

      posted in Player Help
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Germany, a plan for victory in Europe

      I’ve become a big fan of a single bomber buy G1.  Along with the two you already have, if you decide to go SL you can get a solid strategic bombing of London in on G2, and if you don’t go SL, it’s still useful to have unlike (in my opinion) a CV in the baltic.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • Method for Estimating the Outcomes of Large Battles

      For several nations, particularly Germany, Russia, Japan, and the US, a large chunk of their strategy revolves around positioning their large stacks of units.  A critical part of this maneuvering is determining if the enemy stack can crush your stack, or vice versa.  Calculators make this really easy, but take a lot of time when playing in person.  I aim to demonstrate a way to mentally calculate which stack would win, and by how much.

      To start with, I want to emphasize that I know this game is a dice game.  Dice are random.  However, because dice tend to average out over larger numbers of throws, estimation is still possible and fairly accurate for large stacks.  This method won’t work well for determining if 3 infantry will beat a tank - that battle has a lot of luck involved; but then again, you probably know the results of small battles without any calculations.

      Finally, I know that some people will consider this cheating or against the spirit of the game.  For me, little feels worse than for the US to have 6 hours of naval builds wiped out because I misjudged a stack!

      Ok now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to the fun part.  The foundation of this is in Lanchester’s Laws, which describe a set of equations for how 2 forces battle each other.  The output is rather intuitive: In modern combat, with ranged units firing at each other from a distance, the guns can attack multiple targets and can receive fire from multiple directions. Lanchester determined that the power of such an army is proportional not to the number of units it has, but to the square of the number of units.

      If you think about it, you probably already knew this.  When 10 artillery attack 5 artillery, more than 5 attacking units survive, like we would expect if power was linear.  It’s around 8.

      “Suppose the blue army is three times the size of the red army. This means that it is concentrating three times as much firepower on red as red is firing. Just as importantly, red’s firepower is diluted over three times as many blue units. The combined effect of these two conditions is that blue is nine times as strong as red although it only has three times as many units. Similarly, the number of units remaining at the end of the battle is the square root of the difference between the squares of the numbers of units on each side. “ (quoted from gamasutra, which explains this far better than I would).

      Going back to our 10 vs. 5 artillery example… if you plug that in to the formula, you see that sqrt(10^2 - 5^2) ~ 8 units!

      Now, there is a key difference between AAA and Lanchester’s problem - Lanchester’s equations assume continuous combat, whereas AAA is discrete both in terms of time (each round of battle) and of units (you can’t have half a unit).  However, we’re only looking to model large stacks with large numbers of units, so above a certain stack size (> 10) this doesn’t have a big impact.

      The time bit has more of an impact.  The way to think about it is that with discrete salvos (rounds of combat), the defender keeps more of its forces around longer than if it was a continuous fight.  For a simple example, think about 10 fighters vs 1 fighter; in a continuous battle, that single fighter would be dead so quickly it wouldn’t get a shot off.  But in AAA, it gets a full round of combat nonetheless, and will likely take out another fighter on its way out.  The consequence is that the defender has a slight advantage over the model, and that advantage grows somewhat for higher defense values.  Looking at the model vs actual AAA battles, it’s around 5%-10%.  It’s not huge, and because it’s predictable we can somewhat take that into account though.

      So far, we’ve been dealing with units of equal power attacking each other.  Of course, there are multiple different units in AAA.  Lanchester’s laws dictate that if A attacking units of strength α hit B defending units of strength β, the number of attacking units remaining is described by this formula: A_final = sqrt(A^2 - B^2 * β / α) .  Here, α and β are just the unit attack/defense values, so an artillery is 2 and a tank is 3 etc, and an infantry is 1 on attack and 2 on defense.

      So if 30 attacking infantry hit 15 defending artillery, we get:
      sqrt(30^2 - 15^2 * 2 / 1) =  21 units surviving
      In a AAA simulator, we see that the median occurrence is 20, which is pretty close.  And remember, we were expecting to see a defender advantage of around 5% than the model.

      An interesting thing you see with the square root is that a small change in MetaPower can make a big difference in the average outcome.  If you’ve ever simulated a close Moscow with adding 1 or 2 infantry on either side, you know what a big impact they can make!

      Before people start saying that they can’t do square roots in their head… if you just want to know if you’ll win, you can just calculate if α * A^2 > B^2 * β.  Since A is number of units, and α is the unit’s power, then you can also calculate this as A * (α * A), where α * A is the Total Power of your units.  This value is probably familiar, since it is displayed in the tripleA simulator -  2 tanks have 6 total power, 5 inf and 5 art have 20 total power, etc.  With lack of a better term, I’ll define the quantity “MetaPower” = Number of Units * Total Power of Units.  If your MetaPower is greater than their MetaPower, you’ll probably win.  The nice part about this number is that it’s fairly easy to calculate, and has good predictive qualities.

      You can do other things with MetaPower besides just seeing if you’d win.  For example, your MetaPower will be different for attack and defense, so you can see if your stack would be better positioned to attack or defend.  Also, you can see if adding 3 subs and 3 destroyers would help out to a giant Pacific battle more or less than a loaded carrier.

      One note for ships - for 2 hit units like carriers and battleships, you would count the unit twice in the unit count, and only once in the power.

      Now, one factor we’ve been ignoring is that compositions aren’t uniform.  Intuitively, we know that this makes a difference - a tank and an inf is better than an inf and an art even though both have the same power, and we’ve all been burned when German bombers + mech decimated a larger Russian stack of infantry.

      Unfortunately, this is the end of where math takes us.  There’s no closed-form solution past this point.  However, I modeled keeping power and number of units the same and changing composition, and I came up with the following bonuses to MetaPower based off composition:

      No Distribution (all attacking/defending at same number): no bonus
      Slight Distribution (equal 1s and 2s, or equal 2s and 3s): 5% bonus
      Equal Distribution (equal 1s and 3s, equal 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s): 10% bonus
      Fodder Distribution (equal 1s and 4s): 15% bonus

      In summary,

      1. MetaPower = Number Units * Total Power of Units * (distribution bonus + defense bonus)
      2. If your MetaPower is higher, you have a good chance of winning
      3. Remaining Units after a battle ~- sqrt(MetaPower1 - MetaPower2)

      Here are some examples:

      Example 1: Can Russia safely move 35 inf and 20 art next to a german stack that can hit with 10 inf, 10 mech, 5 art, and 15 tanks, and 10 bombers?

      German attack MetaPower = 50 units * 120 power + 10% dist bonus = 6600
      Russian defense MetaPower = 55 units * 110 power + 5% def bonus = 6350

      Remaining German units = sqrt(6600-6350) = 16

      Sim results: mean case is 11 remaining German units, median case is 17 remaining German units.  Probably a bad move for Russia.

      Example 2: How many destroyers can I beat with 8 subs and 12 bombers?

      MetaPower = (8+12) * (8*2 + 12 * 4) * (1 + 15%) = 1472

      26 destroyers have MetaPower = 1420, and 27 have 1530, so I’d bet between 26 and 27.

      Sim results: 26: 55% attacker win, 27 and it’s a 43% battle.  Not too shabby a prediction.

      Now… is this easier than plugging numbers into a simulator?  It might depend how fast you are at math.  I’m not sure how useful any of this is, but I find it interesting that with a little arithmetic and an algorithm used to model combat in WW1, you can get a decent handle on AAA combat.

      For more info on Lanchester’s Laws:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester’s_laws
      http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/38442/inc_hughes_MORS_1995_v1n3_F_ADA321337-2.pdf?sequence=1
      http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130536/the_designers_notebook_kicking_.php

      posted in Player Help
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: How to deal with the Italian fleet in UK1?

      @Marshmallow:

      This is actually the biggest problem with doing Taranto - your UK med fleet is in sea zone 97, the Luftwaffe takes off from W Germany, destroys your fleet in one pass with just a scratch to the Luftwaffe, and lands back in W Germany. Now you’re down your UK fleet and must build another while Italy gets to cash out on its NO for turns and turns until you can get a new fleet to the Med.

      It’s better to let Italy cash out the NO the first turn by moving your med fleet (except two blockers to keep Italy from closing the Med by taking Trans Jordan) to sea zone 81, build the IC on UK1, bring in the India and South Africa ships and India planes to sea zones 81 and 78, and finally move back in on UK2 and drop a naval build in sea zone 98. Now your fleet is so large that while the Luftwaffe can destroy it the Luftwaffe is at least mostly dead afterwards. Italy collects 5 IPCs for the NO instead of 20-30 and you are set up for massive convoy disruption on Italy in sea zone 97. Plus, you don’t lose 40-50 IPCs worth of units because you were impatient.

      This is super interesting.  It leaves Germany with very little to do with it’s air force on G2, which feels really bad for them.  It reminds me of how I play Pacific Allies vs Japan’s ridiculous air force - either give them no good targets, or so many at once they can’t hit them all.

      My one question - with most Germany players doing some Sealion threat (at minimum saving their G1 buy, or actually buying TTs), can the UK still get away with building an IC on UK1?  And if not, could you adapt this to build the IC on UK2 and move the fleet to the med UK3?  Italy collecting the NO twice isn’t ideal but it beats them collecting it the rest of the game.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Silverdragon (axis) vs zergxies & frosh (allies) G40 2nd ed - no bid

      TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.9

      Game History

      Round: 4

      Purchase Units - Chinese
                  Trigger Chinese Artillery Supplies: Chinese has their production frontier changed to: productionChinese_Burma_Road_Open
                  Chinese buy 3 artilleries; Remaining resources: 1 PUs;

      Combat Move - Chinese
                  1 infantry moved from Yunnan to Hunan
                        Chinese take Hunan from Japanese
                  2 infantry moved from Yunnan to Kwangsi
                        Chinese take Kwangsi from Japanese
                  9 infantry moved from Szechwan to Kweichow
                        Chinese take Kweichow from Japanese
                  1 infantry moved from Shensi to Suiyuyan
                        Chinese take Suiyuyan from Japanese
                  6 infantry moved from Shensi to Hopei
                        Chinese take Hopei from Japanese

      Combat - Chinese

      Non Combat Move - Chinese

      Place Units - Chinese
                  2 artilleries placed in Kwangsi
                  1 artillery placed in Hopei

      Turn Complete - Chinese
                  Chinese collect 11 PUs; end with 12 PUs total
                  Objective Chinese 1 Burma Road: Chinese met a national objective for an additional 6 PUs; end with 18 PUs

      triplea_38503_Chi4.tsvg

      posted in Play Boardgames
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Silverdragon (axis) vs zergxies & frosh (allies) G40 2nd ed - no bid

      TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.9

      Game History

      Round: 4

      Purchase Units - Americans
                  Turning on Edit Mode
                  EDIT: Adding units owned by Americans to Western United States: 1 factory_major
                  EDIT: Removing units owned by Americans from Western United States: 1 factory_minor
                  EDIT: Adding units owned by Americans to Central United States: 1 factory_major
                  EDIT: Adding units owned by Americans to Eastern United States: 1 factory_major
                  EDIT: Removing units owned by Americans from Eastern United States: 1 factory_minor
                  EDIT: Removing units owned by Americans from Central United States: 1 factory_minor
                  EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode
                  Americans buy 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 6 submarines and 2 tactical_bombers; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

      Combat Move - Americans
                  Trigger Americans Unrestricted Movement: Setting movementRestrictionTerritories cleared  for rulesAttatchment attached to Americans
                  1 battleship, 4 carriers, 3 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 7 fighters, 2 submarines and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 26 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone
                  1 armour, 2 artilleries and 3 infantry moved from Hawaiian Islands to 26 Sea Zone
                  1 armour, 2 artilleries, 3 infantry and 3 transports moved from 26 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone
                  1 armour, 2 artilleries and 3 infantry moved from 6 Sea Zone to Korea
                  1 tactical_bomber moved from Hawaiian Islands to 6 Sea Zone
                  1 submarine moved from 37 Sea Zone to 46 Sea Zone

      Combat - Americans
                  Kamikaze Suicide Attack attacks 1 carrier owned by the Americans scoring 1 hits.  Rolls: 1
                      Units damaged: 1 carrier owned by the Americans
                  Kamikaze Suicide Attack attacks 1 carrier owned by the Americans scoring 0 hits.  Rolls: 5,5
                  Kamikaze Suicide Attack attacks 1 carrier owned by the Americans scoring 0 hits.  Rolls: 3,5
                  Kamikaze Suicide Attack attacks 1 carrier owned by the Americans scoring 1 hits.  Rolls: 1
                      Units damaged: 1 carrier owned by the Americans
                  Battle in 46 Sea Zone
                      Americans attack with 1 submarine
                      Japanese defend with 1 transport
                          1 transport owned by the Japanese lost in 46 Sea Zone
                          Americans roll dice for 1 submarine in 46 Sea Zone, round 2 :  1/1 hits
                      Americans win with 1 submarine remaining. Battle score for attacker is 7
                      Casualties for Japanese: 1 transport
                  Battle in 6 Sea Zone
                      Americans attack with 1 battleship, 4 carriers, 3 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 7 fighters, 2 submarines, 2 tactical_bombers and 3 transports
                      Japanese defend with 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters, 2 tactical_bombers and 2 transports
                          Americans roll dice for 2 submarines in 6 Sea Zone, round 2 :  1/2 hits
                      Units damaged: 1 carrier owned by the Japanese
                          Americans roll dice for 1 battleship, 4 carriers, 3 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 7 fighters, 2 tactical_bombers and 3 transports in 6 Sea Zone, round 2 :  7/15 hits
                      Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Japanese
                          Japanese roll dice for 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters, 2 tactical_bombers and 2 transports in 6 Sea Zone, round 2 :  6/10 hits
                      Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Americans
                          1 fighter owned by the Americans, 2 destroyers owned by the Americans, 2 carriers owned by the Americans, 2 tactical_bombers owned by the Japanese, 2 carriers owned by the Japanese and 1 destroyer owned by the Japanese lost in 6 Sea Zone
                          Americans roll dice for 2 submarines in 6 Sea Zone, round 3 :  1/2 hits
                          1 cruiser owned by the Japanese lost in 6 Sea Zone
                          Americans roll dice for 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 3 cruisers, 6 fighters, 2 tactical_bombers and 3 transports in 6 Sea Zone, round 3 :  6/12 hits
                          Japanese roll dice for 2 fighters in 6 Sea Zone, round 3 :  1/2 hits
                          Japanese roll dice for 1 battleship, 1 cruiser and 2 transports in 6 Sea Zone, round 3 :  1/2 hits
                          2 fighters owned by the Americans, 2 transports owned by the Japanese, 1 cruiser owned by the Japanese, 2 fighters owned by the Japanese and 1 battleship owned by the Japanese lost in 6 Sea Zone
                      Americans win, taking 6 Sea Zone from Japanese with 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 3 cruisers, 4 fighters, 2 submarines, 2 tactical_bombers and 3 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is 62
                      Casualties for Japanese: 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters, 2 tactical_bombers and 2 transports
                      Casualties for Americans: 2 carriers, 2 destroyers and 3 fighters
                  Battle in Korea

      Non Combat Move - Americans
                  1 carrier moved from 10 Sea Zone to 7 Sea Zone
                  2 submarines moved from 10 Sea Zone to 7 Sea Zone
                  2 fighters moved from 6 Sea Zone to 7 Sea Zone
                  1 destroyer moved from 26 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone
                  1 destroyer moved from 30 Sea Zone to 23 Sea Zone
                  1 destroyer moved from 39 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone
                  1 fighter moved from Eastern United States to 10 Sea Zone
                  1 bomber moved from Eastern United States to Hawaiian Islands
                  1 fighter moved from 10 Sea Zone to Western United States

      Place Units - Americans
                  1 carrier, 1 destroyer and 6 submarines placed in 10 Sea Zone
                  2 tactical_bombers placed in Western United States

      Turn Complete - Americans
                  Americans collect 55 PUs; end with 55 PUs total
                  Objective Americans 2 Outer Territories: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 60 PUs
                  Objective Americans 4 Philippines: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 65 PUs
                  Objective Americans 3 Defense Obligations: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 70 PUs
                  Objective Americans 1 Homeland: Americans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 80 PUs

      triplea_38503_Ame4.tsvg

      posted in Play Boardgames
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Silverdragon (axis) vs zergxies & frosh (allies) G40 2nd ed - no bid

      TripleA Move Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.9

      Game History

      Round: 4

      Purchase Units - Americans
                  Turning on Edit Mode
                  EDIT: Adding units owned by Americans to Western United States: 1 factory_major
                  EDIT: Removing units owned by Americans from Western United States: 1 factory_minor
                  EDIT: Adding units owned by Americans to Central United States: 1 factory_major
                  EDIT: Adding units owned by Americans to Eastern United States: 1 factory_major
                  EDIT: Removing units owned by Americans from Eastern United States: 1 factory_minor
                  EDIT: Removing units owned by Americans from Central United States: 1 factory_minor
                  EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode
                  Americans buy 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 6 submarines and 2 tactical_bombers; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

      Combat Move - Americans
                  Trigger Americans Unrestricted Movement: Setting movementRestrictionTerritories cleared  for rulesAttatchment attached to Americans
                  1 battleship, 4 carriers, 3 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 7 fighters, 2 submarines and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 26 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone
                  1 armour, 2 artilleries and 3 infantry moved from Hawaiian Islands to 26 Sea Zone
                  1 armour, 2 artilleries, 3 infantry and 3 transports moved from 26 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone
                  1 armour, 2 artilleries and 3 infantry moved from 6 Sea Zone to Korea
                  1 tactical_bomber moved from Hawaiian Islands to 6 Sea Zone
                  1 submarine moved from 37 Sea Zone to 46 Sea Zone

      triplea_38503_Ame4.tsvg

      posted in Play Boardgames
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Silverdragon (axis) vs zergxies & frosh (allies) G40 2nd ed - no bid

      TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.9

      Game History

      Round: 4

      Purchase Units - Russians
                  Russians buy 10 infantry and 2 mech_infantrys; Remaining resources: 1 PUs;

      Combat Move - Russians
                  2 artilleries and 1 mech_infantry moved from Finland to Norway
                  2 fighters moved from Archangel to Norway
                  1 fighter moved from Bryansk to Ukraine
                  2 tactical_bombers moved from Bryansk to Ukraine
                  2 infantry moved from Rostov to Ukraine

      Combat - Russians
                  Battle in Norway
                      Russians attack with 2 artilleries, 2 fighters and 1 mech_infantry
                      Germans defend with 1 armour, 1 fighter and 1 infantry
                      retreated to Norway
                      Germans win with 1 armour and 1 fighter remaining. Battle score for attacker is -9
                      Casualties for Germans: 1 infantry
                      Casualties for Russians: 2 artilleries and 1 mech_infantry
                  Battle in Ukraine
                      Russians attack with 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers
                      Germans defend with 1 artillery, 1 factory_minor and 1 infantry
                      Russians win, taking Ukraine from Germans with 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 7
                      Casualties for Germans: 1 artillery and 1 infantry

      Non Combat Move - Russians
                  2 fighters moved from Norway to Finland
                  1 fighter moved from Ukraine to Russia
                  2 tactical_bombers moved from Ukraine to Russia
                  3 artilleries moved from Volgograd to Tambov
                  1 mech_infantry moved from Rostov to Russia
                  1 armour moved from Rostov to Russia
                  2 aaGuns moved from Bryansk to Russia
                  3 infantry moved from Timguska to Novosibirsk
                  3 infantry moved from Kansu to Tsagaan Olom
                  3 infantry moved from Olgiy to Tsagaan Olom
                  1 infantry moved from Olgiy to Tsagaan Olom
                  2 aaGuns and 11 infantry moved from Yenisey to Timguska
                  4 infantry moved from Bryansk to Tambov
                  2 infantry moved from Bryansk to Russia

      Place Units - Russians
                  10 infantry placed in Russia
                  2 mech_infantrys placed in Volgograd

      Turn Complete - Russians
                  Russians collect 26 PUs; end with 27 PUs total
                  Trigger Russians 1 Lend Lease: Russians met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 32 PUs
                  Objective Russians 2 Spread Of Communism: Russians met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 35 PUs

      triplea_38503_Rus4.tsvg

      posted in Play Boardgames
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Silverdragon (axis) vs zergxies & frosh (allies) G40 2nd ed - no bid

      TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.9

      Game History

      Round: 3

      Purchase Units - Chinese
                  Trigger Chinese Loses Burma Road: Chinese has their production frontier changed to: productionChinese_Burma_Road_Closed
                  Chinese buy 4 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

      Combat Move - Chinese
                  Turning on Edit Mode
                  EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode
                  EDIT: 1 destroyer moved from 26 Sea Zone to 30 Sea Zone
                  9 infantry moved from Yunnan to Szechwan
                  6 infantry moved from Kansu to Shensi

      Combat - Chinese
                  Battle in Shensi
                      Chinese attack with 6 infantry
                      Japanese defend with 1 artillery and 3 infantry
                      Chinese win, taking Shensi from Japanese with 6 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 13
                      Casualties for Japanese: 1 artillery and 3 infantry
                  Battle in Szechwan
                      Chinese attack with 9 infantry
                      Japanese defend with 1 infantry
                      Chinese win, taking Szechwan from Japanese with 9 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3
                      Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry

      Non Combat Move - Chinese

      Place Units - Chinese
                  3 infantry placed in Yunnan
                  1 infantry placed in Shensi

      Turn Complete - Chinese
                  Chinese collect 7 PUs; end with 7 PUs total
                  Objective Chinese 1 Burma Road: Chinese met a national objective for an additional 6 PUs; end with 13 PUs

      triplea_38503_Chi3.tsvg

      posted in Play Boardgames
      P
      prodigenius
    • RE: Silverdragon (axis) vs zergxies & frosh (allies) G40 2nd ed - no bid

      TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.9

      Game History

      Round: 3

      Purchase Units - Americans
                  Americans buy 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 fighter and 2 submarines; Remaining resources: 5 PUs;

      Combat Move - Americans

      Non Combat Move - Americans
                  1 destroyer moved from 37 Sea Zone to 39 Sea Zone
                  1 destroyer moved from 30 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone
                  1 destroyer moved from 31 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone
                  1 carrier and 2 destroyers moved from 10 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone
                  2 fighters moved from Eastern United States to 26 Sea Zone

      Place Units - Americans
                  1 carrier and 2 submarines placed in 10 Sea Zone
                  1 bomber and 1 fighter placed in Eastern United States
                  Note to players Americans: America has joined the Allies, and declared war on the Axis!
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for Japanese and Americans from Neutrality to War
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for Chinese and Americans from Neutrality to Allied
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for British and Americans from Neutrality to Allied
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for UK_Pacific and Americans from Neutrality to Allied
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for ANZAC and Americans from Neutrality to Allied
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for Americans and French from Neutrality to Allied
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for Americans and Dutch from Neutrality to Friendly
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for Germans and Americans from Neutrality to War
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for Italians and Americans from Neutrality to War
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for Americans and Neutral_Allies from Neutrality to Friendly_Neutral
                  Trigger Americans War Japanese: Changing Relationship for Americans and Neutral_Axis from Neutrality to Unfriendly_Neutral

      Turn Complete - Americans
                  Americans collect 52 PUs; end with 57 PUs total
                  Objective Americans 2 Outer Territories: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 62 PUs
                  Objective Americans 4 Philippines: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 67 PUs
                  Objective Americans 3 Defense Obligations: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 72 PUs
                  Objective Americans 1 Homeland: Americans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 82 PUs

      triplea_38503_Ame3.tsvg

      posted in Play Boardgames
      P
      prodigenius
    • 1
    • 2
    • 1 / 2