Posts made by SgtBlitz

Hell, with a Baltic full of German transports, you could invade Karelia on G2-3 and avoid walking through 4-5 of the territories on the way to Moscow.  Reinforcing them would still be a mess, and Britain could always start dropping troops in Archangel, if not blow up the fleet in the Baltic and counter from there.  But it would definitely be a viable alternative, as Baltic navy builds in other AA games have shown.

@xzorn:

The boats should have some escort, so Germ has to choose between using the airpower on the transports or on crushing the hell out of France.

Heh, France can only build infantry, right?  You KO the brit transports and France isn’t getting any reinforcements anyway.

Soviet counterattack?  With what?  I’m guessing game will start with Russia having units like in AA50-41… pretty damn sparse.  Russia is probably going to go after Germany’s turn, so Germany should get at least one turn to build a defense in the capital.

Hell, if the Baltic SZ is only 1-2 SZs across anyway, building a bunch of transports for Sealion may be the best option for moving troops around back from France > Britain > Germany in a single turn.  Otherwise, looks like the troops in France may just be stuck mopping up and the new builds in Germany will be the offensive force against Russia.

@Brain:

We need a battle strip for this new concept

Would be cool to include dogfights in AA, that’s for sure.

@Omega:

And when you get your 24 planes in Moscow. I’d be happy to tell you that Pacific is LOST

I mean, you guys have played AA Pacific 40 right? You guys know how much the Allies need USA there right? So what happens if USA doesn’T do his job in Pacific? I think Asia will be lost quickly

Stop whining about consolidated income. It will increase the fun of the game and punish those who think they can put in 1 front only

Robert

24 planes wrecking shop in the pacific on the way there could be entertaining for some.  But, yeah, its not an option supposed to be taken seriously, I’m just suggesting doomsday unbalancing options with the new USA XTREEM COMBINED INCOME RULEZ.

Yeah, 10 fighters one round, anyone else think that could possibly unbalance the game?  Oh well, I think IPC counts are increased overall anyways in 1940.

Though Brain Damaged has a great point, if UK is the country with split income, then Sealion looks even more tempting after all.

LOL, even if it’s NOT in the 100s as a combined income, what if its still in the 80s with NOs?  Imagine building all planes and bombers for the first 3 rounds and seeing 24 fighters in moscow by the time the Germans get there.  It’s crazy, man, I tell you.  It’s just crazy.

Hmm, actually now that its confirmed that the US isn’t a split income (and will have crazy unbalanced mounds of IPCs to throw at either front), a turn 2 Sealion KO attempt with Germany doesn’t seem that bad of an option at all.  Looks like this might be the ONLY viable strategy if the US turns out to be a 100+ IPC juggernaut with NOs.

How in the hell can Japan even provide a counterweight against a combined income US like this???  It would take 3-4 turns of Japan navy builds to even ATTEMPT to invade W. USA, out of which 100 IPCs going into ground forces can stop at the drop of a hat.

Guess WOTC wants a new name for the global game of AA1940:  TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE!  “TEAM AMERICA!!! *%^@ YEAH!!!”

LOL.  The split income power will be… drumroll  CANADA???

Probably more like INDIA.  Or they’ll call it the BEF (British Expeditionary Forces?) and lump 'em all together.

Can’t wait to see the ocean of tears from die-hard Axis players when they see a 100+ IPC consolidated US front on turn 3.

@i:

i agree normally in aar its impossible like one time germany had 15tanks and15 inf 10ftr and 10 bombers
but i had 4x as many inf tank and ftr then germany i won evan after 25 attacks still had all my tts!!!

but in e40 i say turn 1 attacks posible. you will have a huge nave to start with and to show the brit retret they should have 4 inf on transports in the chanel 1 on england and scotland and thats it german will have a nouf to take that!!!

Heh, that’d be awesome, the Brits start will all their infantry loaded onto the starting transports…  that’d be perfect in representing the evacuation at Dunkirk.  Goering can have another shot at preventing their getaway round 1!

@allboxcars:

@SgtBlitz:

Assuming the fighter rules allow defending fighters to shoot down the bombers on a four or less, and the bombers shoot back at 1, does this seem like it could be balanced.  Even then, all a power has to do is stack his capital with 3-4 fighters and SBR is removed from the game altogether… 4 to 1 attrition rate!

Fighter escorts would solve this.
And really that’s what fighters do best: engage other fighters.

I guess the Allies will need to take Norway or land in eastern europe somewhere to pull fighter escorts off?

@KurtGodel7:

@Brain:

If you want more realism. Each piece should have different attack and defense values when engaged in air,ground  or naval attacks. Bombers attacking at a value of 4 makes sense when attacking ground units, but not against fighters.

There are three possible methods for doing this:
1. The Larry Harris way. Units have:

• An attack value
• A defense value
  2. The method I used in my rules set. Units have:
• A land combat value
• A naval combat value
• An air combat value
  3. Combining the two methods. Units would have:
• An attack value (land)
• A defense value (land)
• An attack value (naval) . . . etc.

Fighter
Anti-air combat value: 4
Land combat value: 1
Naval combat value: 1
Movement: 4
Cost: 10

Fighter bomber
Anti-air combat value: 2
Land combat value: 4
Naval combat value: 5
Strategic bombing value: 1 IPC
Movement: 4
Cost: 10

Strategic bomber
Dogfight value: 1
Land combat value: 2
Naval combat value: 2
Strategic bombing value: 3 IPCs. Plus a permanent, 1 IPC reduction in the territory’s value.
Movement: 6
Cost: 15

I like your ideas, Kurt.  It’d be nice to not have the cheap 4 attack of the bomber used on everything halfway around the board.  Bombers used in land fights wouldn’t be so over-represented (and represent an apparently infinite supply of bombs for however many rounds of combat).  Navies would be mostly fights between carrier borne aircraft, as it should be.  Bombers would be mainly used for SBRs, and as support aircraft, not the main force for attacking.

Not sure about the rule for the territory value loss there…  By round 3 of a dedicated Allied SBR campaign Germany will be producing 0 units even with repair (4-5 Brit bombers and 4-5 US bombers day/night raids).  Maybe have the “SBR territory damage” bought back at 2-3X the normal repair cost.  Assuming the fighter rules allow defending fighters to shoot down the bombers on a four or less, and the bombers shoot back at 1, does this seem like it could be balanced.  Even then, all a power has to do is stack his capital with 3-4 fighters and SBR is removed from the game altogether… 4 to 1 attrition rate!

@xzorn:

Some supplies went through India and Archangelsk. Perhaps an NO to hold 2/3 of them?

Like the one in AA50 already: if Russia loses Archangelsk it loses a 5 NO; or loses it if another Allied unit is on soviet land (cause Stalin is paranoid?)  Maybe instead of India, where the Brits already have a major base, have the supply line through Persia for a Lend-Lease NO?

@oztea:

sadly, I dont think any land territores will prevent sea movement (other than suez and istanbul) just because thats how larry does things, he likes to let combat happen, so you have to think defensively, rather than rest on your laurells behind an invisable wall

If I had my way….I rationalize straights this way…the straight doesnt actualy stop movement, there isnt a big net they put up or something. What it is, is that straights are conjested enough that if a side controls a territory with a vantage point over the ONLY entrance/exit to the negboring sea zone, then they can give advance warning to their comrades if ships are steaming through (Italians into the atlantic, UK into the baltic) This advance warning would allow the defender to pick off ship, by ship (or task force by task force) as it steams through the narrow gap. WITH advance warning for their air cover.

The reason why you wont charge a straight is because your sailors would mutiny! they dont know whats in the baltic sea, and they sure as hell arent going to charge through it into the lions den of german air power.

I favor rules like this…but larry favors hard evidence that you wont attack…like if germany wants to hold the baltic they should build boats…what that creates however is an arms race…germany keeps building boats, so UK has to build more boats, after a few turns, you cant raid eachoters fleets, its either go big or stay home. send all your boats and airpower, or none.

Yeah, its completely retarded, the suez and panama are the only territories with capture necessary to use (exception: dardanelles optional some games), when of course gibraltar and the baltic sea should be the same as well.  The fact that they can be blithely crossed at will leads to a lot of ahistorical games, where 1) Germany is forced to hold a large part of its army back to defend its capital from British raids (the UK didn’t have any ships in the baltic until the very end of the war, as the straits were mined too well; and the Allies didn’t even have a real port in Europe until 1945); and 2) Italy can throw its fleet at the Brits and Yanks in the SZ off Algeria (SZ12) without the British base in Gibraltar giving off any warning that the fleet was passing through (Straits of Gibraltar are what, like 9 miles wide?  Good luck sneaking a battleship through that.)

Totally unrealistic, but I guess we need game balance first.  I guess making the Baltic impassable for the Allies makes Germany a bit TOO strong at the beginning of the game, but it would make seizure of Norway and Northwestern Europe (for use of the Baltic Straits) a priority for both sides and make them more than just dead-zones, as you would need them to try Sea Lion or a naval invasion of Germany.  Italy needing to seize Gibraltar in order to open up passage to the Atlantic would make a lot of sense as well.

Probably added this to the end of the wrong thread:

LOL, now you’re wanting to go attack England now instead of Russia (before or after finishing off France?).  There was some other thread about dividing up England during Sealion since it will be two territories now:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16471.0

I still think Sealion is an utter waste of time most games, but if you can catch unexperienced Allied players off guard it can be successful (i.e., this only works ONCE on the beginning players, I’m sure an exp. UK player can see it coming a mile away).  Perhaps if Russia is prevented from invading Germany till Round 3, (with a reduced income rule like the US as a neutral before entering the war) could this be possible, and it would still be incredibly risky so early in the game.  You would probably only get one shot at it by building all trans and a carrier in the Baltic round 1, with the invasion on round 2 before England can really build enough land units to make it completely improbable (also before the US enters the war/has reinforcements in range).  I’m guessing 3 loaded transports, with 4 planes and a bomber as air cover would be all Germany would be capable of Round 2, IF Britain hasn’t already damaged/sunk the Baltic fleet and/or blocked the Channel with a sizeable navy stack.  Even if Britain went 100% ground defense instead (4-5 inf, 3 arm, 1 fig build on round 1), I’m sure the defending army will be at least equal in number to the invading units Germany has, with odds AND AA gun hits in its favor.

Bah, forget it, you will see the same dillema the OKW came to when Sealion became a possibility after the Fall of France, its just not worth risking all the war material when there are easier fish to fry in Europe.  Better to isolate and destroy British holdings elsewhere to weaken it to a surrender-able level.

Plus, by not spending your round 1 ipcs on navy, you’d be reinforcing your armies for eventually invading Russia and defending the continent from the UK.

Also, if we’re not playing with take-capital-take-all-IPCs rules, its definitely not worth the risk.  It may not even be worth the risk if you’re going to seize it for only one round’s worth of IPCs, and lose multiple fighters in the process.  The surviving UK navy will just take it back with land units from Canada on UK’s turn.

LOL, now you’re wanting to go attack England now instead of Russia (before or after finishing off France?).  There was some other thread about dividing up England during Sealion since it will be two territories now:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16471.0

I still think Sealion is an utter waste of time most games, but if you can catch unexperienced Allied players off guard it can be successful (i.e., this only works ONCE on the beginning players, I’m sure an exp. UK player can see it coming a mile away).  Perhaps if Russia is prevented from invading Germany till Round 3, (with a reduced income rule like the US as a neutral before entering the war) could this be possible, and it would still be incredibly risky so early in the game.  You would probably only get one shot at it by building all trans and a carrier in the Baltic round 1, with the invasion on round 2 before England can really build enough land units to make it completely improbable (also before the US enters the war/has reinforcements in range).  I’m guessing 3 loaded transports, with 4 planes and a bomber as air cover would be all Germany would be capable of Round 2, IF Britain hasn’t already damaged/sunk the Baltic fleet and/or blocked the Channel with a sizeable navy stack.  Even if Britain went 100% ground defense instead (4-5 inf, 3 arm, 1 fig build on round 1), I’m sure the defending army will be at least equal in number to the invading units Germany has, with odds AND AA gun hits in its favor.

Bah, forget it, you will see the same dillema the OKW came to when Sealion became a possibility after the Fall of France, its just not worth risking all the war material when there are easier fish to fry in Europe.  Better to isolate and destroy British holdings elsewhere to weaken it to a surrender-able level.

@xzorn:

Japan should have to pay upkeep for units in non-coastal Russian territories. The reason they went to war with the allies was to seize BADLY needed oil resources.

Bah!  There’s oil in Siberia!  Not that Japan would have had the means or know-how to extract it at this time period, but there were at least SOME things of value in the Siberian tundra.  Vladivostock was Russia’s only major port on the Pacific Ocean, and it was connected to the Trans-Siberian Railway.  A lot of American Lend-Lease aid came through the port during the war.  It’d be nifty to have its capture cut off one of Russia’s NOs once Japan seized it.  But yeah, the Dutch East Indies were viewed as Japan’s last hope for keeping her war machine going, and the other Allied powers wanted them as well.  NOs and other incentives should keep the game somewhat historically accurate.

Just have the IPC values of these Soviet territories reduced to zero; you’re welcome to the land if you want it, but most likely just wasting your time and resources invading it.  Better to go through China first and kill two birds with one stone.  Opening up yet ANOTHER front with Japan seems suicidal enough as is, guess it’s just necessary for end-game purposes.

Or, for added realism, you could just start the game half an hour before the Russian player arrives.

LOL.  Great!  “…I think we saved some of your IPCs for the last two turns around here somewhere, didn’t read the rules about Russia yet though, we weren’t sure to give you peacetime or wartime footing income or not…  Anyway, don’t worry about it, we’re halfway to Smolensk already…”

@KurtGodel7:

America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.

@Brain:

Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.

Both of you have good points. I’m tempted to address this issue in my rules set. The below text is an idea I’ve recently come up with, and which I haven’t yet posted to that rules set.

While the U.S. is neutral, it can do the following:
1. Collect and spend IPCs.
2. Load up to 24 IPCs onto its transports each turn. (A transport can hold 6 IPCs, so we’re talking four transports total.) These IPCs can be shipped and unloaded into friendly factories, and become the property of whichever nation owns the factories.
3. Build and move units. But it pays double the price for any units it builds.
4. It can move tanks, artillery, and planes onto the soil of other Allied players. At the end of each Ally’s turn, whatever American units happen to be on that player’s soil become the property of that player. (Does not apply to American units on Canadian soil.)
5. It can conduct research. However, the U.S. is limited to only one research center while neutral.
6. It can initiate attacks against German naval forces in the Atlantic, just as it did in 1940 while still technically neutral.

After the U.S. is attacked, the following happens:
1. All the IPCs and MPs it may have stored are returned to the bank. Immediately after the attacker has concluded his attacks, the U.S. performs a one-time collect income action to make up for this. (This is to prevent the U.S. player from stockpiling IPCs while waiting for unit prices to fall.)
2. The U.S. player can now only load 12 IPCs onto transports each turn.
3. American units on non-American Allied soil no longer become the property of other Allies.
4. The U.S. is allowed to build additional research centers.
5. The U.S. can attack Axis players without restrictions.

24 IPCs of lend-lease may seem like a lot. But bear in mind that the U.S.'s starting income is 71 IPCs, and will grow to 126 IPCs over the course of the game through industrializations.

Under this rules set, would it be worthwhile for the Axis to attack the U.S.? Possibly. The U.S. is required to have a lot of transports in various places to collect its full income; with each missing transport associated with a 3 IPC economic penalty. Taking a bite out of that transport fleet would create a temporary income penalty for the U.S. Then the U.S. would have to build replacement transports, plus the military ships with which to defend them. It would likely be four or more rounds before the U.S. had fully recovered from the initial Axis naval attacks. Plus, there’s something to be said for forcing the U.S. to attack separately from other Allies, rather than merging its units with those of the British, or, worse, the Soviets! Under these circumstances, I think that in some games, the optimal strategy would be to attack the U.S.; and in other games the Axis players would be better off leaving it alone.

Yeargh!!!  Complicated!!!11!1  Axis and allies realism only goes so far; at some point one has to draw the line.  Convoy zones are enough abstraction as is.  This just sounds like way too many rules to add to the already convoluted 1940 rulebook.

The suggested ending US income of 126 IPCs proves a point about the lopsidedness of the Axis predicament, however.  I just don’t see how its feasible for Axis victory when the Allies have such a huge base defended by several turns of SZs with insane purchasing capacity.  With the Axis powers on opposite sides of the map, there’s no way either side can hold a 125 IPC juggernaut off for long.  At least one front is going to have to cave; guess this will be Larry’s approximation of “balance”.

Meh, guess I’m just bitching the same as usual for all Axis players…  Rolling well is necessary to win and the Allies generally have the upper hand economically, with time on their side.  It’s just going to be more pronounced in this global game.

I just don’t see how its feasible with a window of maybe 3-4 turns after US war declaration to gobble up all of Russia between Japan and Germany, with US right on the Axis doorsteps with insane crazy builds of 2-3 turn 100+ IPC unit uberness drops.  It will lead to faster games but I’m betting the endings will not be a lot like AA50 1941 scenario games…

Even IF Germany and Japan manage to snag Russia they will probably be too weakened to hold against a monster US in one front.  Unless the US income is revised downwards to like 60 total or 35/35 split before NOs, I don’t see the Axis being able to compete against a smart US player, the TUV count just won’t let them maintain superiority.  For example, with Britain starting the game with an IC in India and possibly South Africa, and the ANZAC being a separate power, it will be next to impossible for a focused Japanese Axis strategy if the US gets combined income on one front.  Even if its split, all the US player would need to do to maintain superiority is combine his Atlantic and Pacific fleets 2 turns later for unstoppable force.  This would lead to Japan doing a lot of preventative strikes around midway and hawaii to keep the US from combining fleets, if its even possible, diluting a lot of its threat to the rest of the theater.  Forget about any help arriving in Russia, Japan will be hard enough pressed keeping all the little threats contained!

Man, I don’t even want to think about a 100+ IPC US invasion of Italy, with Britain as backup.  Poor Italians, Il Duce will never know what hit him.  Might as well start building infantry round 1.

Jesus, I don’t see how it could be anything but a split economy; if the US has a peacetime/wartime footing like in AA1940Pac, 80 IPCs plopped down on either side of the US on any given turn is completely unbalancing (how is 8+ planes a turn remotely fair to the Axis players on either front?).  Even with split incomes, it looks like it won’t be feasible for the Axis to win extended games simply due to the fact that the US will be banking TWO incomes for the Allied side once war is declared.  That’s something any axis player would have a hard time chewing through, not to mention how EUS/WUS incomes will be dealt with the production markers, and which captured territories belong to which US income.

With an Axis breakdown of 50-60 Ger, 15-25 Ita, and 60-70 Jap income w/ NOs (with a perfect opening game) vs. an Allied income of 30-40 UK, 20-30 USSR, and 100+ USA income w/ NOs (guestimation), it seems balanced until you realize that the US can put ALL those IPCs into one front or, in the case of split economies, simply losing a few turns merging its fleets through the panama canal and making the split economy point moot.  Since the Axis are the most hard pressed to combine their forces against Allied stacks, and those opportunities generally only present themselves in the middle of the board around Egypt and Persia, I just don’t see how even a 70 income german player can stand up to a 100+ IPC US juggernaut with a 30+ IPC UK sidekick for long.  I’m guessing this is supposed to “balance” out the first 1-3 turns of reduced peacetime income and prevent the game from lasting till round 32 two weeks from game start, but since all the Allied side has to do is build infantry in Russia and the Axis has to roll well for most of its important battles, unless the Axis can take out Russia by turn 6 the game is already finished.