Posts made by Rammstein

Hi Garg,

After playing with your group I have come to realize that this version of Axis and Allies far exceeds previous versions, even though it has some minor bugs. I now own it for myself.

I would like these rules clarified please:

France and Vichy France:
1. How do Vichy France rules work for FIC and Saigon and the Islands in the Pacific? If Saigon is rolled as Vichy, then Japan cannot capture it for itself right?

2. If Paris falls and there are still German land attacks to be completed against French land units, but these units are rolled as Vichy, no combat occurs I assume, and Germany automatically “captures” said territory? What about naval combat?

3. Vichy ships, like land units, only sit and defend and are not controlled or moved, correct?

4. Free French territories are considered to be “UK” owned in the same way Vichy territories are “German” owned? Can the US “capture” Free French territories in Africa for example, if Paris is under Axis control? On that note, if an Ally liberates a Vichy territory, does ownership go to the liberating power or does it become “Free” French?

5. When rolling for Free French and Vichy territories, are all territories rolled for and control markers placed, and THEN movement of Legionnaires to friendly territories assigned?

6. The 5IPCs for the 2 German Inf and 1 Tank in Marseilles must be saved PRIOR to attacking France and is to be spent the MOMENT Paris falls to Germany?

7. Which territory is the French naval base in SZ53 allocated to?

8. Lend Lease.
Can US send money to more than one country per turn? Like, send $10 to London and $10 to Moscow, and $5 to ANZAC all in the same turn? When does Lend Lease occur, during the US Purchase Units phase, or during the receiving Ally’s purchase units phase?
The rule says the US may only make ONE attempt to EACH country per turn.

Does one Axis power (says “player” in rule book) roll for ALL lend lease attempts, or can different Axis powers roll for each attempt separately? ie. Germany rolls to try to intercept money going to Russia and Japan tries to intercept money going to London in the same turn?

Can US send money to Nationalist China and/or Communist China?

9.  Russian Partisans.
When a partisan token appears on the board, does Russia take control of that territory or is it still in Axis control until it becomes an infantry? Since the Partisan token has a defense value, I assume combat must occur to “regain” the territory for the Axis? Can planes land in this territory if the Axis eliminate the Partisans?

10. Do SS Panzers and Heavy Tanks get +1 bonuses when combined with Tac bombers?

11. Is the Nationalist Chinese fighter limited to land territories same as Nationalist China? Can it land in Communist Chinese territories?

12. Can Naval Fighters/Tac bombers (US and Japan) target transports?

13. Can Germany move units into or through Italy when Italy is NOT at war?

14. Infantry conducting banzai attacks do NOT get the +1 bonus for being paired with an artillery, correct? That’s how I read the rule.

15. Call to Arms.
If Germany attacks Great Britain (home territories) on multiple separate turns with land units, do Infantry cost $2 for EACH of those turns, or is it once per GAME the first time Great Britain is attacked?

16. UK NO 1. +5 IPC for no German subs in the Atlantic Ocean. Which territories EXACTLY encompass the Atlantic Ocean?

17. Can Germany invade Eastern Poland AFTER turn 1 and not cause a state of war with Russia?

18. Can Kamikazes target transports?

19. If you activate a Pro-neutral country’s capital territory, does that mean that all the other territories under that country’s flag go to the activating player’s power, or must they be activated separately one at a time?

20. Can a transport carry 1 Inf and 1 AA gun, attack in an amphibious assault with the Inf, and then unload the AA gun if the territory is captured? Or does the AA gun stay on board? Can the AA gun be offloaded to a friendly territory in the same SZ if the attack fails?

21. Pg 35 of the rule book. Example 1.
“5 submarines attack 3 destroyers and 1 cruiser. 3 of the subs are detected by the 3 destroyers automatically. The other 2 subs can either stay in the battle and get first strike or may retreat to the nearest friendly sea zone….”
So, unlike G40, the subs can “retreat” to a friendly territory that is beyond their movement range? They do NOT have to retreat to a friendly SZ from which they came?

22. If 4 subs attack a destroyer which borders an airbase, the defender can scramble up to 3 planes? If so, ALL 3 planes can only roll against 1 detected sub, right?

23. Argentina is listed as an Axis Minor on the board and in the rules, but in the setup charts it is listed as a Pro Axis Neutral. How exactly is Argentina “activated”? Do German troops need to land in the capital territory to “activate” all of the territories?

If someone could clear these up it would be appreciated. Sorry if some of this is redundant.

Having played with Gargantua and his group I do like the house rules they’ve implemented. I would personally add air transports to the game instead of using bombers as airborne carriers, especially as HBG makes these sculpts. Also considering adding SP artillery.

Cheers

Sorry for the naive question, I found the thread I was looking for.

Was there ever a youtube video made?

Very nice work YG! Just beautiful.

I have been planning a similar war table in my mind for a while now, just haven’t quite had the time - yet. I am curious, how did you create the custom map, with the battle board and charts built in, as a single board (hence no creases etc)? Would very much like to print out a similar board as I hate the creases of the OOB boards.

I assume you have a custom file on computer, but how/where do you print such a thing?

Would love to know a few secrets. :)

Very nice pics my friend. I really like what you did with the neutrals, and even giving them their own roundel. Makes the board seem much more “alive”.

Wow, you put in quite a lot of hours! I figured it would take a while, maybe a year, but that is a lot of hours! But you did go the extra mile with the bases of infantry etc.
Did you consider using decals on some of the units? I have seen decal paper in hobby stores that allows you to print your own. Ever heard of these? Have an opinion on them?

If you put up more pics, I would like to see more Germans and Japanese. It looks like you have several camo patterns for your Germans. Can we see some pics of battle? D-Day, Sea Lion, Stalingrad, something like that? :)

Some questions:
Do you use enamels or acrylics? I’ve heard enamel is better for playing pieces.
Do you use a glossy finish? Spray on or paint on?
What were the hardest units to paint? Which were the easiest? Which were most fun?

Thanks!

Indeed it must have been. Was it worth it? Haha

How often did you work on it, and how many hours a week did you average do you figure?

Thank you sgtwiltan, I will keep that in mind.

Looking forward to more pics, and basically a run down of how long it took etc. Any info is appreciated!

Thanks for the tips. I am probably going to start my own painting project very soon, any advice for a newb painter? (I have painted a few 1:72 scale tank models and they turned out quite well)

How long did your set take to complete? Did you use enamel or acrylic?

Please put up more pics if you have any, it’s nice to see the pieces set up on the board itself, very colorful!

Nice work. How did you make the custom roundels on the map itself?

Yes.

I use the HBG Air and Naval bases, as well as Major and Minor factories. They are all the same size, stand out well, fit next to each other, and save space for real units. I like the uniformity.

If they make WW2 flags I would use them to mark VCs and to show conquered ones. Germany better get swastikas on their flag (realism).

True, planes are not really needed in Russia except maybe for Moscow. I meant if you had to replace plane losses then that’s less men going to the Russian front.

It sounds like your German opponent goes Barbarossa and keeps a shield of planes and subs against the west? I’m curious what his purchases are.

I agree, I would also sacrifice planes to sink a fleet with TTs, however it can be a costly and risky move. I do think that an extra German bomber or two is helpful mid game as it can threaten Allied ships and attack Moscow in the final push.

I think my purchase lineup for the US can work with most scenarios, but again if need be trade Bombers for warships. I have played as the US and purchased no Bombers whatsoever and found that the Axis have an even easier time defending themselves. Bombers are like the queen piece in chess, maximum range and great punch. Also, if Moscow looks like it might fall sooner than expected those Bombers can be sent in as fodder which can make all the difference.

I find that 6 fully loaded TTs ready to land on US6 is a respectable and decent landing force on its own, add 3-6 Bombers and the Axis are going to have a tough time surviving the attack. If indeed the Axis have strong defenses the US can simply wait until US7 to attack and bring another 5 Bombers up. Next turn 12 land units plus 11 Bombers plus possible bombardments should equal victory unless the Axis has 30+ Inf defending.

I am pro Bombers obviously, but after turn 4 if the strategy calls for it I will purchase TTs and men. But I still like to have an initial Bomber force when going to war.

That’s one hell of a Luftwaffe at that point of the game   :-D How’s the Eastern front going?

As far as German subs go, if Germany did well in naval on G1 and subs are aplenty I would probably buy the 2 Destroyers over the CV for this reason. Hopefully, if UK is doing his job right he can put a Destroyer blocker in the English Channel to prevent any German subs from hitting the  US Gib fleet. But regardless, the US should be able to do this himself.
Unless Germany purchased an Air Base in Normandy or something, those Fighters and Tacs shouldn’t be able to reach a Gib fleet. Even if that were the case those planes would have to land in Algeria and therefore get wiped out in a counterattack.

The whole thing is about balance, too much fleet protection and your offensive punch suffers, too little and your troops might never make it ashore. Bombers are the only REAL threat to a US fleet in Gib as German subs can be blocked or hunted if need be.

Like I said I like to have 6 TTs ready in Gib at start of US6. The US can send out his warships on US4 and kill any rogue subs on US5 if need be, Bombers are good in this way too.

Like I said, depends on what Axis does. If Germany purchased Bombers for example the US can exchange Bombers for Cruisers/Destroyers as fleet protection.

The idea behind my strategy is to have 6 fully loaded TTs by US6 ready to land with air support and some degree of shore bombardment.

As far as fleet protection I don’t see a problem. If the US goes with a CV purchase I think it should be able to deter any potential attack the Axis can throw at it while the fleet is parked in Gib.

Depends on what Axis does of course, but typically this:

US1 - 1 Transport, 2 Destroyers or 1 CV, 1 Cruiser

US2 - 2 Bombers, 1 Fighter

US3 - 3 Bombers

US4 - 4 Transports, 2 Bombers and/or Cruisers, 2 Inf

I normally pick up one unit and grab Brazil when US goes to war with 2 TTs. These 2 TTs will link up with the 4 TTs in Gibraltar US5, giving a substantial landing force by US6.

I am REALLY in favor of Bomber purchases for the US, they are extremely flexible in any strategy the Axis does imo. I like to go to war with 6 Bombers, they can support in any front you wish.

I believe the missing Russians might be the cause of the problem.
They keep the Japanese player honest. As it stands he can  abandon Manchuria and Korea and use the large number of Ground and Air units for aggressive manoeuvres.
Perhaps in Pacific, half the number should be removed as compensation, if it is too complicated to rule some remain as a Static Manchuria Garrison.

I see your point but I have to disagree. I am not in favor of changing the setup, it’s too complicated. The rule change needs to be simple, like the one offered. +30 IPCs IS simple and does not change the starting setup.

Just because Russians are stationed near Manchuria in Global does not mean that they will ALWAYS be used to fight the Japs. Some players may wish to pull them back completely and Japan may decide to not invade Siberia, so this said scenario about keeping Japan honest becomes no different from what happens in Pacific anyway. Just saying.

I have played games where Japan sent in the Manchurian garrison and either barely took China or didn’t in the end. You might be surprised how badly needed those extra men are in China.

Has anyone else tried out this +30 IPC bonus yet?

I did a play test of this +30 IPC bonus. So far I like it.

I did a J1 attack and a conventional Japanese strategy, not invading USA, and while the Allies did win in the end I actually liked giving the US the bonus. It did not seem to break the game but gave the US more teeth and like someone mentioned in another thread “Why NOT attack on J1?” well this might be an  incentive not to. I will play it some more but if the consensus among players is positive I would potentially like to see this rule included (for Pac only obviously).

I LOVE Global, but I also like Europe and Pacific individually because you can finish a game in one sitting and less table space is required. I hope after some more testing maybe we can get an amendment to the rule book just like for Europe original.

I don’t think that Pacific is unbalanced per se as it stands but I think the Allies have to play well to win, Japan has more options imo. However in Pacific there are no Russians to worry about, so maybe this +30 IPC helps balance the game anyway.

Any plans to make your 41 work for stand alone games?

Does your latest 1941 setup work for standalone games of Europe and Pacific?

I have listened to a couple of your episodes. Funny shit. Somehow you guys sound “Canadian” lol.

@Cow:

I almost never buy cruisers. Worst unit ever.

Please explain. Is it just the cost? How much should they cost? 10 is definitely too cheap, 11?

@Gekkepop:

I disagree with most people here, cruisers are good if you need to protect your fleet while also making your amphibious assaults stronger, and are more efficient than any other ship if this is the case, especially if your target is already in air range making carriers an inefficient buy. The most common nation to want this flexibility is probably Italy, but I could see the UK, US, Japan and ANZAC buying cruisers in the right circumstances. They are not the most commonly bought unit but certainly not useless.

You helped clarify my point. I am not a Cruiser fanatic by any means, but this post is about which Nations should buy them and I think Italy is best served by Cruisers, if only one. I would probably never buy them as Japan, especially in a naval war of attrition. The UK sure could use them but because of their cost I generally buy Destroyers as UK.

@ghr2:

well if italy can’t afford a carrier to put it’s 2 starting planes on, it really has no business buying anything naval besides subs, dds, and trannies.

Agreed, however if Italy has no air force to speak of then I think a Cruiser purchase makes more sense as a good offensive unit (shore bombardment) and will help keep Transports alive as a defensive unit. A Cruiser mixed in with a few Destroyers might make a country like USA think twice about sending only air against Italy’s fleet to sink the valuable Transports.

The main reason I advocate Cruisers for Italy is because she is usually poor in the early rounds and probably won’t have to worry about enemy Subs (right away at least), plus she needs to land men in Africa to win all the while protecting precious Transports.

@WILD:

If UK is able to keep a couple of their starting cruisers, then add one (or two), combined they can be quite devastating to coastal territories (like Rome, or any Italian held territory in the Med).

Shore bombardments can sometimes make all the difference in an amphibious assault where the land odds are fairly even or where air support isn’t an option. I like to have Cruisers as the US in the Pacific to help out because the US usually doesn’t have many Transports in the theater and getting men to the front line takes time, so conserving the men you have by softening up islands makes sense to me.