Posts made by Razor

My apologies, your houserule that allows players to scramble fighters to adjacent land zones as well as sea zones is a winner. This is the way A&A OOB rules should have been from the start, and I don’t figure why its not. Must be some balancing consideration. Maybe fighters become too powerful. Anyway, this rule should be the standard.

Yes, I want to allow aircrafts to land in newly captured territories as well as contested territories. If you have a land unit there, then you can land a plane there.

@Krieghund:

…… and someone in the crew picked A&A (as Frimmel suggested).  Whether that was a random choice or that individual is a fan of the game is anyone’s guess.

Are you sure Larry Harris have nothing to do with this ?

@ossel:

, so I’m not sure how a territory remaining contested could ever make it easier for aircraft to land there.

No, I totally disagree. An Axis & Allies territory represent a very large area, in some times an entire country. And a turn represent 3 to 6 months. It would be crazy if the real world Hitler told his generals that, yes we occupied Poland this year, but we have to wait until next year to land aircrafts there, due to rules and regulations.

Lets take Norway, it is one territory on the AA map. In the real war attack on April 9 1940, German mountain troops captured two airfields in Southern Norway on day one, and they started to use this airfields from day one. They even landed heavy Bombers there, like the Condor, from day one. The other day, UK started to use the Norwegian airfields, and they landed bombers there too, even if Norway was a contested country. So why do you want a game rule that is absolutely far away from what is possible in a real war ?

I could go with your rule, if Airbases was allowed to scramble defending fighters into adjacent territories under attack, since that too was pretty common during WWII, but I bet you don’t wanna allow that either

Yes, maybe a defending tank should deny one matching attacking tank the two hit absorb

Or tanks defend on 4 or less

@frimmel:

Have not seen this episode yet, since Norway is a few months behind, but it is my favorite tv show.

I guess Howard, at left, play Russia, since he originate from Poland, and is a Jew. From his seat he reach all of Russia

Shelton is most likely to play both Germany and Japan, since he is from Texas (Dixieland) and tend to a fascist behavior, he always must have control. And from his seat he reach both Ge and Ja

Leonard must of course play USA, and is currently focused on the European theater.

Raj Koothrapali at far right play UK, of course

@WILD:

BTW, Razor your the one that originally complained that the Russians are forced to wait until turn 4 to declare war on the Germans. So I imagine that you agree that Stalin could have been the aggressor, so we are kinda working the same point.

No you got that wrong, man, I just want Russia to be non neutral and able to attack any one they want from turn 1, like in the real war and I cant see how that would skew the balancing

@WILD:

. I agree that if the Russians saw them pulling back, and word came that England was being invaded that the Russians very well may have pounced. Oh wait the the game allows for that, because if on G3 the Germans take London, then the Russians can declare war R3 (a turn early), and invade German territory. One could argue that even a failed Sea Lion attempt should unleash “The Beast from the East” as well. Its not Russia’s fault that the dice didn’t cooperate LOL

Russia was in fact allied with Germany at the time a real life Sea Lion would have been launched. Churchill even wanted to declare war against Russia during the Finnish winter war, but he was not in power at that time, Chamberlain was. And Stalin would have loved to see capitalist England be conquered by a socialist allied. So this rule is bedlam too

@WILD:

I agree the shuck to Spain would be great, and requires defense in only one sz. I don’t think the allies would have to much trouble holding it, or reinforcing it because it is only one move away from DC, London and Canada via transport, and air have a direct flight (no layover lol). A US IC built in Spain also adds units (fleet, ground?). Plus they still get the benefits of sz91 (Gib naval base), but can quickly adapt adding naval/air base to Spain if Gib is in jeopardy giving them even more range.

The real benefit with Spain as operational base, is that you can power project more than twice with land units against the Axis capitals, than with the classic shuck shuck chain. With 6 trannies you can land 12 land units in Spain in one turn. With the classic chain, 3 trannies will be at the sea, and only 3 trannies with 6 land units can land in Western Europe, and it even  need two turns. The pic will be even more skewed, since most of the warships that are needed for protection in the classic route, can be put into land units and trannies with the Spain strategy. And on top of that, fighters from US arrives in Spain in one move only. No unnecessary delays.

The downside is that I don’t think the Spain landing would have worked for the Allies in the real war. Of course they would have preferred to land in a shore not defended by German guns, but Spain is all mountains and so far away they would need two years from the landing until they reach the gates of Berlin. UK tried it during the Napoleonic wars, sir Wellington landed in Spain in 1808 and would fight for 5 years, but was never able to cross the impassable Pyrenee mountains and get into France. On the other hand, Napoleon walked on feet from Poland to Moscow in less than 3 months, and back to Poland again in 3 more months. Plain terrain is easier than mountains
See the attached pic

We can only hope Larry will cut Spain in 2 or 3 territories for the next edition he is planning for 2016

@wittmann:

Things are hotting  up in the Ukraine. Does not look good.

Nothing we cant fix with my m1

The attack on America comes true, our homes are in danger

@Flashman:

Shouldn’t WWII tanks be able to absorb hits on defence as well as attack?

No, they absorb 2 hits because of the encircle tactic, which produce less casualties than the classic trench warfare, and not because they got armor, like the 2 hit battleship.

Attached are to pics,
Pic 1 is of the classic infantry attack with artillery barrage, and this is a meat grinder with lots of casualties

Pic 2 is of the modern maneuver warfare, where tanks break through the enemy line at the flanks, cut the supply line and encircle the dug in enemy, forcing them to surrender. This make less casualties to the attacker, and this is why the attacking tank absorb two hits

and pic 3 and 4

This is just a policy paper, and in a real game we must expect counters.

I will now post 4 pics.
Pic 1 is the shuck to Spain, where US need two trannies for the to and the return. US will only need warship protection in sz 91, so this is a cheap strategy. It is also fast since you land a tank in Spain turn 1, and reach Belgium, France or Northern Italy in turn 2.

Pic 2 is the shuck to N. Italy, here you need 5 trannies for the back and forth, you need warship protection for 3 seazones, and you land a unit in N. Italy turn 2, but are using a lot more resources.

Pic 3 is the shuck via Canada, UK and land in Belgium turn 3. Here too you need 5 trannies for the back and forth, and land in Belgium turn 3, one turn later than the Spain route.

Pic 4 is the Norway shuck, via Iceland, her too you need 5 trannies and a lot of protection, and land in Norway turn 2, which is good.

@ossel:

I’m not sure if this helps the issue you’re bringing up, but on the subject of dogfights, it might be interesting to have each player separate their air forces into an “air superiority” group and a “ground support” group, resolving the air superiority battle first and applying bonuses to the ground . Perhaps restrict bombers to ground support, and have tactical bombers be able to participate in both. I’ll have to think about this one, just spitballing here.

I figure we should do this very simple.

If Amphibious Assault
1a. Naval combat as OOB rules
2a. Defending artillery roll preemptive fire, 3 or less a hit

Land combat
1. Air combat. Every attacking Fighters, Tacs and Bombers hit on a roll of 1.
Defending fighters hit on 2 or less. May scramble fighters from adjacent territories with airbases.

2. Anti Air guns fire, OOB rule

3. Ground battle. Fighters strafe land units at 1, Tacs hit land units at 3, or 4 if combined with a tank, Bombers at 4, or the carpet bombing houserule
Defending fighters hit land units at 2, Tacs at 3 and bombers at 1
Land units act as usual, but with 1914 Battleboard

4. The attacker press attack, stay for contest or retreat

If the attacker press attack, then do this again, from 1 to 4.

I think Fighters should cost only 8, since they now att on 1 and def on 2. But they should be able to scramble both to seazones and territories, and land in newly contestet areas.
Tacs cost 10, and Bombers cost 12.

@Flashman:

Do we still allow attacker retreats i.e. strafing? Or must the attack be followed through.

You tell me, Flash, was it, to your knowledge, in any time during WWII, or any other war, some kind of a divine judge that told the generals that Dieppe raids or kamikaze attacks was illegal moves, and you was only allowed to do 3>1 attacks. No, I didn’t think so. So why do you want rigid and derogatory fantasy rules for this A&A game, when in real world the generals do what they want.

As I said, after first round of battle, the attacker should choose to press continue  attack, or stay in the territory to contest it, or retreat. Why should attack or retreat be the only options, when in the real wars there are many different tactics to use. Maybe even the defender should have a choice to stay or retreat, they had in the real war

@Flashman:

Should attacking planes even be permitted to land in newly contested areas; maybe the infrastructure needed for air units to operate is considered too complex to allow this.

Since a turn is 3 or 4 months, then yes a fighter should be allowed to land in the grain field on a newly contested area, just as they did in the real war. But a big Bomber should always need an airbase. Bombers don’t land on carriers either.

and as I said in my previous post, an airbase should be able to scramble 3 defending fighters into an adjacent territory too, and not just into seazones. And with fighters att at 1 and def on 2, they will not upset the balancing.

I am thinking among the same lines myself.

CONTESTET TERRITORIES
I figure the attacker should have 3 options. After the first round he can press attack, stay or retreat. Just as in the real war, it should be your choice if you want to continue the attack until the territory is conquered, or you want to stop the battle but stay in the territory to contest it, or just retreat. Remember that a territory is large as a country, and a turn is 3 months, and there was no phase during the real WWII where Germany or Russia vacated Poland with a small force, just to trade it back and forth, like we usually see in A&A games.

THE BATTLEBOARD
The 1914 Battleboard is perfect for WWII. G40 infantry should att at 2 and def at 3, because a 1940 infantry division had a lot more firepower than the 1914 infantry counterpart. And the 1940 tank should absorb two hits, because the maneuver warfare tactic was to break through the enemy line at the weak point, and then cut off the enemy supply, and this made few casualties but big surrenders. On the other hand, the classic assault with artillery barrage and infantry charges was a meat grinder with lots of casualties, and no surrender. So yes, artillery hit on 4 or less, they are the King of the battlefield, and tank hit on 2 but can absorb 2 hits.

DOGFIGHT
Yes, you must fight for air superiority before the ground battle. I think fighters should cost 6 or 8, and att 1 and def 2, both in air combat and later in ground strafing. This will be historically correct. Then the Stuka can hit ground units on a 3, or on a 4 if combined with a tank. And the bomber should carpet bombard huge infantry stacks, maybe like the classic AA gun, roll one dice for each inf, every 1 a hit. I also believe that an airbase should be able to scramble 3 fighters to an adjacent territory under attack, and not just seazones.

AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULTS
I love the 1914 rule that give the defending artillery a preemptive roll against amphibious assaulting ground units. This is exactly how it was on Dday and every other landing during both WWs. Maybe even the inf should attack on 1 in the first round of a landing, since the tanks don’t absorb hits when wading ashore. Then we can have Marines that still attack on 2 during landings

@ossel:

Perhaps, as Harry Turtledove suggests in his novels, if the French and British had lost WWI, nascent fascist movements would have arisen there instead of defeated Germany.

I wouldn’t bet on that. Italy won WWI and they actually started the fascist movement. Russia lost, and they started the commie movement. I guess it depends on other things man

@ossel:

“A commander is created if a territory is seized which contains a victory city or a major industrial complex.”

I guess one of the FAQs will be if you get one more general for every time you trade France, in the ex. US liberate France this turn, Germany retake it next turn, and so on and so forth etc.

ossel, nice idea, but I will need to playtest it before I have any comments.