Posts made by SgtBlitz

I tried it already:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20754.75

It wasn’t one of my better games and I doubt it should be used as a guideline (think it was my third Global?)

I wouldn’t recommend it under the current True Neutral rules unless Germany or Japan seriously sends some loaded transports and a carrier group to contest S. America (and be willing to invest in a minor IC as well).  It’s just too much bonus to the US with all those extra free infantry produced.  Japan could send a loaded transport(s) to take Chile on J3 in conjunction with an attack on Pearl Harbor; if Germany is threatening a Sealion and the US is built heavily into the Europe theater, it might work.  You could also try a combined assault with Germany attacking from Gibraltar on G3 to seize Brazil or Argentina while Japan invades Chile; if you combine both carrier groups together and both powers built minor ICs, it could tie up the US for quite a while.  It will also be a huge drain on the Axis war effort too, for a measly 8 S. American IPCs, but it might be worth it if it takes the US out of the war for another 4-5 turns.

@Croesus:

I’m sorry I ever started this thread. If you guys hate the revisions, don’t play with them, Larry is doing a heck of a lot unpaid work to be hearing any of this crap from you. If you don’t want  to hear people whine about the balance then don’t read the forums. And SGT.Blitz a signature like that makes me wonder why you’re even hear. You’re all the biggest whiners I’ve found in my entire forum hunt and the fact that Krieghund saw this forum makes me ashamed. Next Moderator who sees this. Please lock or destroy or remove the thread

Dear God, flamed again…  Apparently people either can’t take jokes or have to outwhine the whiners when it comes to attention.  My IRONIC comic might have some basis in reality in that Larry can’t seem to make his mind up either on what to do with the AAE/P40 games…  so why not chuck it all and focus on the better things in life?  Obviously, my suggesting new revisions and constantly testing these Alpha + Global versions on the forums is completely detrimental and I should just go die of shame for ever possibly suggesting something counter to the new(er(est)) version everyone else is currently glorifying.  What a bad person I must be, to disagree about boardgame rules with other people!  “Gather the kindling!  We have a witch trial to begin!  SgtBlitz is the reason Global 1940 sucks!”

Also, I’m sorry, the last I heard was that I paid a total of $180 to purchase both Pacific and Europe Axis and Allies 1940 Editions, and expected them to come OOB with a working Global version that had been systematically playtested and was accurate and fair to both sides playing the game (“fair” can be debatable, but I like a game where the Axis have at least a prayer in hell if they focus their energies correctly).  Obviously, mistakes have been made.  If we’re making GAME CHANGING REVISIONS to the CORE RULES (hint hint SCRAMBLING CHANGES), I’d like to imagine that my input based on historical perspectives and viable Axis 1940 options could be valued as well.  Of course, my even making SUGGESTIONS is declared heretical and I am forever subjected to namecalling and thread closings…  Whatever.  The True Neutrals aren’t even that big a part of the game anyway.

@Gargantua:

Like the Alpha setup changes… if someone is going to create a new module rules for Neutral Blocks,  perhaps one should consider a BEEF UP the Neutrals?

Maybe some tanks and / or planes…  AB’s, NB’s, Complexes?  Otherwise certain Neutrals will get hit EVERY game.

I love the concept though…

Um, 20 enemy infantry isn’t enough of a disincentive in Europe, alone?  Plus you will have longer fronts and more territories that will need to be garrisoned.  Going after Spain so you can put troops into Gibraltar will require a huge influx of troops from the Western Front, and all of it will be vulnerable to Allied landings on the coast.  Turkey is probably better in that after you take it over, you can now send transports through the Straits into Russia, and you also have better access to the oil in the Middle East.  But you’re also spreading your troops out rather thin in fighting Russia this way as well.

@Shakespeare:

So as I understand it there are these Neutral Blocs:

Turkey bloc;

Argentina Bloc;

Spain Bloc;

Sweden/Swiss bloc;

and Mongolia alone bloc?

Is that right?

And the former obo Neutral rules only apply to the immediate/adjacent neutral neighbors about them?

Sounds right.  We’re gonna try it out.  Stay tuned.

@strategic:

I agree. I do not use Alpha in any way, shape, or fashion, although I also sometimes do a bid and I make Italy neutral until its 1st turn, otherwise, I don’t do anything else. Thank you IL for coming up with the Italy neutral idea.

Dude, Italy being neutral on the first round is an awesome idea.  Italy officially didn’t enter the war until June 10, 1940.  If we consider the invasion of Paris occurring on June 5 by the German forces, and all the turns are effectively happening simutaneously, then Italy has the OPTION to declare war on its turn, starting the game neutral to the Allies.  Brilliant.

(Though 5 days is a bit of a stretch considering each turn in game represents 3 months…)

@knp7765:

Yeah, I tend to agree with you guys.  I think adding that IC in the Ukraine is going to prove more detrimental to Russia than to the Axis.  While it may help Russia get troops to the front a little quicker, especially infantry, once Germany attacks Russia, it won’t take them long to get to that IC and if Russia doesn’t have sufficient force to take it back, then Germany has a nice IC to build up troops right in Russia’s front yard.  Easy to take Stalingrad.  Then Germany has 2 ICs to build up more units for the final push into Moscow, 3 if you figure they have taken Leningrad by this time.

I’m betting that Larry put this in to speed the Russian game up.  If Germany takes 2 of the minor ICs around Moscow, that’s half the reinforcements needed to keep on pushing to Moscow.  If Germany takes 3 minor ICs, then Russia’s pretty much down to producing INF in Moscow anyway, and Germany will probably be outproducing them even from the 3 minor ICs, making it a matter of a few turns before Moscow falls.

Could also work in the same manner for the Reds if they’re doing well on their front, making reinforcements on the front line.  A good idea, and it saves Germany $12.  :-D

@Emperor:

@strategic:

I love your signatures(the parts about socalist) but drinking leads to bad things

mmmm…maybe…but jesus turned water to wine, not soda pop.

Alcohol is probably the sole reason man went into agriculture in the first place.  Whether civilization is a good thing or not is debatable, but if it weren’t for fermentation, we’d probably all still be hunter-gatherers.  So, get sh*t-faced for a reason, celebrate our dominance over the lesser species in grand style! (Yes, this could also be leading to bad things, depends on your perspective…)

Grrr… I disagree about your socialist statement since much of that $3 trillion went to the BANKS to purportedly “save us all from the next Great Depression”, (i.e., look at the all the bank CEO bonuses and Morgan Stanley paying back the loans with stock PROPPED UP BY THE LOANS THEMSELVES), but let’s leave it at that, shall we?

@Woodstock:

@BadSpeller:

@Woodstock:

What Inmajor said. I expect to buy a game that’s finished.

Maybe look at it this way, we were able to get the game 2 years before it was released.  Many addtional playtesters are tuning the game before it’s final release.

So I am getting a whole new updated copy once they’re done playtesting?  :roll:

Nope, but you can BUY Larry’s NEW AND IMPROVED AXIS AND ALLIES 1941 edition ™, for only 3 easy payments of $39.99!  AND get to do the ridiculous “revised setups” B.S. all over again cause he spent all his time “fixing” the current edition!

@13thguardsriflediv:

@SgtBlitz:

Shut up, troll.  That’s obviously not what Garg meant by that statement.  IF Argentina was a Pro-Axis country, its perfectly possible for Germany to activate it by G3 by sending its starting fleet from SZ 112 to Gibraltar during its opening moves.  Maybe even Japan could spare a loaded transport to activate it from the Carolines.  A contested S.A. would be more fun than the free Inf/IPCs True Neutral system we’ve got now.  Sheesh.

No need to get angry :roll:
And sorry if I ‘offended’ anyone, man I do admit that I am tired of those endless ‘Germany is not strong enough’ requests to Larry and co when it just isn’t true.

Oh Lord.  This isn’t even about ‘Germany is not strong enough’… If anything, even with our suggested revisions, Germany is still taking the brunt of the damage killing 20 enemy infantry in Europe that it doesn’t have to in the first place, so it actually is WEAKENING GERMANY to pursue this idea.  This is more about having the opportunity to try out different ahistorical scenarios and increasing the number of options available to the Axis in 1940.  The current True Neutral rules (and dare I say, the new Alpha + .2 setup, where the Sealion option is now ludicrous) currently hamstring the game into a race for Moscow from G1 on.

@eudemonist:

Bah.  Out of box is a fine game.  There are a couple strategies that are more effective, but finding those is part of the fun of the game to me.  If you stay off the internet and just play within your play group, you’ll probably play at least a few dozen games  before it starts to get too “dialed in”.  For me and my group, that’s like a couple years, maybe.  It’s only if you get on the internet and research the fruits of the the labor of armchair generals worldwide that it gets really out of whack.  With a game this size and complexity, I think it’s just about impossible to achieve the requisite level of fine-tuning without public examination.  Just too many man hours, and, because people tend to think along similar lines, there isn’t as much divergence.  Dunno, just my thoughts.

tl; dr  Good game.  You’ll be glad you bought it.

Okay.

“A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.”

• Alexander Pope

@Sgt.:

I agree that the true neutral rules as they are don’t make sense. This is the first thing I talked about changing before even playing my first game of Global. I really like the idea of neutral blocks and am going to suggest it for our next game. Although I’d push for blocks that relate to geography as opposed to historically accurate political alliances. That way it’s fairly simple to follow and keep track of.

South American Block: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile
African Block: Rio de Oro, Portuguese Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique
European Block: Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden
Asian Block: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Mongolia

You could also add Saudi Arabia to the strategic oil reserve NO for the Axis just to make things interesting (and it almost has more oil than the other countries combined).

The Asian block would be the most interesting since if the Axis powers take Turkey and/or Saudi Arabia, Mongolia is now Pro-Allied and Russia can reap the rewards. Even without the whole neutral world turning against you, that’s still a large disincentive.

Good idea.  I would rather have an Islamic (or Middle Eastern) bloc separate from the Mongolian bloc (as Mongolia by itself is divided into tons of little territories all full of potential infantry), but it makes a lot more sense than the current rules now.  If Germany invades Turkey, the UK is generally in position to get the inf from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, so it evens out there, especially if we add oil NOs.

Would you like to start a play-test game with these ideas house-ruled in?  Send me a PM.  Should be hella fun.

@C_Strabala:

@lnmajor:

I think what WOODSTOCK is getting at for the amount of money he invested he feels that more effort could have been put into playtesting and getting it more dialed in before launching it.

I couldn’t agree more with this statement. I really feel that there was more playtesting & editing needed before this game was released.

Yup…  having played many MMOs and god knows how many boardgames out there, there’s a lot to be said for testing the quality of the product BEFORE passing it out to the unsuspecting populace.  You might lose more customers than gain, especially the die-hard fans (check my sig).

My advice is to stick to the script, that is, the script of all the other previous A and A games…

Germany’s primary target should be Russia (unless England is acting like a total moron and asking for you to invade them).  Russia should build defensive infantry at first to watch the German’s first moves and decide from there whether they will need more defensive inf (Barbarossa) or offensive arm (Sealion).  Japan needs to go after the money islands, take over China, and threaten India if not outright take it, while maintaining naval parity with the US in the Pacific.  The UK should do everything in its power to hold the line against Germany until the US enters the war, but most of all, NOT losing England to an amphibious invasion by G3.  Italy needs to survive, mostly playing the same role as the UK, i.e., NOT being in position to be invaded by the US/UK from Gibraltar without enough defenders to hold the capital from amph. assault by I4.  The US is the one exception, barring really bad Allies team play, you can generally get away with doing anything you want since you are the infinite money god uber Allies superior band aid fix side, plus you don’t really need to worry about taking too many casualties as you can build entirely new stacks of anything every round.  Just think of the US as the hammer pounding the nails into the Axis coffin.

The more deviations the Axis go from the script, the more spread out your forces get, until the US’s infinite money advantage steps in and lays your guys flat.  If you’re not equalling/exceeding the total money the Allies are getting by Round 6-7, you’re doing something wrong, and its just a matter of time before the economics and a few bad rolls force you to surrender.

To wit:

Always be pushing forward with some ultimate objective in mind.  Realize in advance how many units they’ll have by the time you get there, and how many units you’ll need to take it with your own forces by the time you get there.  Plan your builds in advance accordingly.  If some stroke of good or bad luck occurs, don’t panic, just adjust your strategy depending on the situation.  If something comes to a critical juncture, remember that as the attacker you’ll have the advantage in that you have the option to retreat if the dice go bad, whereas the defender is stuck with what he’s got. Sometimes a defeat isn’t really a defeat, if it wears down the utimate objective enough so that another side has a chance of taking it (don’t want to know HOW many times the Japanese finished off the Russians after the initial German push failed in old games).  With that in mind, try to coordinate attacks and defending stacks with your teammates. Italy/Germany work really good together in Russia; by the same token, the UK/US work really good together in France.  Italy/Japan can also try some shenanigans in the Middle East and Africa.  Why make the game harder than it needs to be if two coordinated forces are better than one?

Always keep your ultimate goal in mind, however, and don’t let victories in other fronts distract you from the ultimate goal.  Sure, its great that Germany is on a roll keeping the US/UK out of the Atlantic for the fourth consecutive turn now, but if the campaign in Russia is stalled out, that’s not what you should be crowing about.  The sooner you accomplish your ultimate goal, the sooner your side gets to winning the game, rather than just prolonging it.

@13thguardsriflediv:

@Gargantua:

That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…

It’s totally viable to have a decent S.A. campaign as the Germans, if there is a reason to go there that is (IPC’s), It draws the U.S. away from the main battle fronts.  in Europe and africa.

We should have a German cruiser, destroyer and sub in the South Atlantic, and a loaded transport too otherwise it is so unfair for Germany that they will hardly ever get to South America. And a few subs in the Pacific cannot hurt because it is unfair that Germany cannot participate to help Japan there.

Shut up, troll.  That’s obviously not what Garg meant by that statement.  IF Argentina was a Pro-Axis country, its perfectly possible for Germany to activate it by G3 by sending its starting fleet from SZ 112 to Gibraltar during its opening moves.  Maybe even Japan could spare a loaded transport to activate it from the Carolines.  A contested S.A. would be more fun than the free Inf/IPCs True Neutral system we’ve got now.  Sheesh.

Yeah, I guess it’s okay that they’re “improving” the game (at least in trying to make it somewhat balanced), but… damn.  There’s just SO much more you could put into this game that would make it more awesome.  For instance, people argued that the current scrambling rules were stupid (i.e., England is considered NOT an island, yet somehow Japan was; plus you could scramble EVERYTHING you wanted too off islands, leading to inbalances in the Pacific involving the US/Japan) in the original OOB setup.  We now have revisions to where EVERYONE can scramble a moderate 3 planes now, and the game is much better for it, adding another layer of strategic interaction.  So… why can’t we change the nonsensical True Neutral rules?

We have pro-Axis/Allied countries, which everybody has no problems with, even from OOB.  We then have the untouchable True Neutral countries.  The current True Neutrals rule doesn’t make sense, in that if the Japs invade Mongolia, the government in Argentina thinks the sky is falling in and practically BEGS the US to occupy it, conscript the entire standing army, and mobilize their entire economy to a war-time footing…  I’m sorry, but that simply doesn’t make sense, for an attack on a country on the other side of the world (the US didn’t even care that much about the UK or the SU getting attacked by the fascists in the first place, for crying out loud!) to send ALL the neutral countries in the WORLD into the other side’s camp.  Now IF the Japanese DID send a carrier fleet along with a couple transports over to Chile and invaded that country, Argentina asking for assistance from the US WOULD start making sense.  We need True Neutral blocks for more historical realism!

Why can’t Germany honestly develop a strategy invading Spain and/or Turkey?  Even IF we change the rules so that attacking these True Neutrals doesn’t turn every other True Neutral country in the world Pro-Allied, the burden of taking the True Neutrals is still on the attacker, especially for Germany/Italy, with 14 infantry to chew through between Spain and Turkey (and possibly 6 more inf in Sweden to boot, if we have a True Neutral European block)!  I think the attackers cost of taking the True Neutral countries in the first place is MORE than enough deterrent to keep the game balanced in the first place.

If people are still want the old T.N. rules, why don’t we add a caveat that you can only attack True Neutrals w/o repercussions until the turn the US enters the war?  The US goes to war if Germany takes England, so if Germany pursues a Sealion then they can’t (and probably don’t have the material to) attack the True Neutrals.  If Germany attacks the True Neutrals at all, it makes sense that it should happen before the US and the SU enters the war; otherwise, their forces are just too spread out against the new opponents to survive.  Same for Japan, attacking Mongolia before the round the US enters the war should be feasible as well (maybe have the SU be able to declare war on Japan early as a special case).

@Shakespeare:

“Too much complication….”

After all these myriad revisions?

You’ve got to be kidding me.   :-(

These revisions unfortunately show in the 1st place that the rules are arbitrary. As is the setup.

I mean the attitude is that since the original game was hard for the Axis to win, WOW wonder how that ever creeped into a WW2 game,

we’ve got to arbitrarily revision the rules and setup until the Axis powers can  win.

Wait till Axis and Allies Stalingrad comes out and the Germans keep losing the game.

What if AA Midway  results in the Japanese losing the battle too often.

I can see the Japanese players whining: Give me an extra carrier or two.

When will this whining end?   :?

I now hear there are Beta revisions coming soon and wait till you see Gamma!

It will insure the Axis wins 50% of the time.

Does this have an ending?

No, I am afraid becz the cat is out of the bag and now every revision is as arbitrary and as good as the next.

The attitude now seems to be that there no definitive rules and for me that is slowly taking away my desire to play the game.

Let’s take away the challenges in this game.

It is like this new attitude in American schools: lets get rid of competitive play becz it is too damaging for the self esteem

of our kids. No trophies for the winners or better yet trophies for all.

Yes. that’s it lets devise Omicron every nation emerges a winner!!  :lol:

or

Revision Omega: Italy never wins, OK Italy goes 1st with it’s 4 BB’s in the Med……

This is really sad IMHO.

Shakespear, I know what you mean.  I put up a few comments on Larry’s forums about tweaking the True Neutral rules a bit, and he stomped all over me.  How DARE I propose to change HIS rules???  His comments to my response are in RED…

Yo, Larry, here’s a tweak to consider for the True Neutrals: Yo…? Do we know each other?

Can we change the True Neutral rules a bit? How about “Attacking any True Neutral causes other True Neutral Countries IN THE SAME CONTINENT (or REGION) to become Pro-other side”? Ridiculous that the Axis (which would gain the most benefit from it) have the option to attack them in this game but its infeasible to actually go through with it… (mostly because S. America with a BIG chunk of neutral income is going to go to the US anyway, if its either Pro-Allied OR Pro-Axis). I guess you summed it… it’s just ridiculous

Would Germany declaring war on Spain, Turkey, and Sweden really make Argentina BEG for Allied assistance to keep them from falling to the heathen Japs (not to mention letting the Allies recruit for FREE their entire standing army)? Maybe we can make attacking Turkey lets both Saudi Arabia and Afganistan become Pro-other-side as a special case (WWII Islamic country bloc?), maybe attacking Spain causes only Sweden and Switzerland to become Pro-other-side. Its even worse, True Neutrals, in Global… Would the Mongolians really join the Soviets if Germany attacked Sweden? Very much doubt they would (even care).

We already have a lot of countries that are Pro-Axis/Pro-Allied to begin with; if the overall Global situation isn’t changing with them being captured and/or mobilized, why should there suddenly be a major shift on the board for attacking a True Neutral? (Meaning most of all Franco’s Nationalist SPAIN, which pretty much owed its existence to Hitler and Mussolini’s help during its Civil War.) Plus, Germany STARTS THE GAME with several countries that were definitely TRUE NEUTRAL WITH GERMANY BEFORE THEY WERE CONQUERED (Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark (…etc., etc.), with treaties and everything), shouldn’t the rest of the board already be Pro-Allies then in 1940? If Germany’s already run roughshod over those pacts, why should it (and the world) suddenly care about it running over a few more? Hard to argue against such towering logic.

Just some points to bring up… Annoys the hell out of me that the US/UK uses Gibraltar to the point of exasperation EVERY single game but Germany attacking Gibraltar through Spain essentially gives the Allies +10 IPCs that ISN’T going to be realistically contended over during the course of a game (not to mention LOTS of free infantry). If I were you I’d toss your A&A game(s) into a dumpster and finally be rid of this ridiculous pretense of a game. :wink:

Really dislike how they’re willing to even discard historical accuracy and even ADD NEW GAME RULES (i.e., tweaks to scrambling!) in the name of GAME BALANCE (waaaah Taranto Raid is historical yet overpowered…. waaaah I am a bad Italy Axis player… waaaah)…  yet somehow True Neutral rules are right off the table.  I even put in another post on his forums later on that suggested that maybe the Axis could invade True Neutrals without penalty (cause they were doing it anyway before the game even starts in 1940) until the time the US enters the war on Turn 3, and world opinion shifts against them.  But NO.  Idea shot down.

It’s a hard enough game for the Axis anyway, but I’d rather see changes to the rules that can INCREASE their potential options available to them in 1940, as it was historically, rather than superficial artificial changes that just plop a lot more units down on the map at game start in the name of “balance”.  We KNOW that Germany attacking Russia before they finished off Britain was a bad idea today, can we emulate that in the game?  Invading Spain to get at Gibraltar was a strategy proposed by some of the German High Command to block the Brits from the Med, why can’t we do that instead of running our tanks willy nilly back from France to be in position for Barbarossa by G3?  Russia is able in this game to pull back troops from the border territories without any problems during NCM, in reality Stalin forbid any withdrawals or retreats for any reason, AND the majority of their initial forces WAS on the border with Germany occupying E Poland.  If Russia can withdraw troops without historical penalty, why can’t Germany invade Spain without historical penalty?  I guarantee that the Allies at the time wouldn’t of cared a fig about Spain, as it was mostly Pro-Axis with Franco in charge to begin with.

Anyway, Sealion is pretty much out of the question in Alpha +2 version too, so now it looks (and plays) just like all the other versions of A and A.  So much for all the new rules and special thought going into the N.O.s in the equation; we’re just going to play the game like it’s always been played…

Man, Larry really can’t make up his mind about this…  The scale between the number of units on both sides of the board was BAD to start with, and adding units to the Europe side ain’t helping any.  The Pacific and Europe games were probably never meant to josh together in the first place.  He first slants it towards the European Axis by adding the Italian airbases and the new scrambling rules for the Med, then the Allied pro-UK players all start complaining that it’s so unfair now the Axis can stop Taranto, so then he beefs up the UK to the point of insanity AGAIN in the Med AGAIN to compensate for it yet AGAIN… Meanwhile we’ve got the same territory values so that a 30 IPC Germany is supporting a 10 plane starting armada, and the UK has over 300 IPCs worth of units at game start with a 28 IPC economy supporting it (out of which 90% of the extra Axis/Allied units will be sunk on Round 1 if Germany attacks SZ 110 and SZ 111, and the UK pursues a Taranto raid (of course they will!)).  And France is still just worth 19 IPCs in the Global game.  Kiss Sealion GOOD BYE…

Right now I’m looking at SEVEN planes sitting in the UK for a Round 3 Sealion attempt by Germany if the UK goes entirely on the defensive… retarded.  5 UK FIGs, 1 French FIG, and the TAC from the carrier in SZ 98.  He even gave them an airbase in Scotland and a few more infantry, so that the UK is even MORE protected from naval strafes on the first round.  The Germans get to shoot through a surviving fleet ALSO in SZ 110 now when they invade on G3.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen a clearer picture from a game developer about what NOT to do with the European Axis with the “new and improved” Alpha +.2 setup.  You might as well just plan Barbarossa G1 or G2!

I loved my “straight odds up the middle” G1-2 attacks to force an outcome against the UK, but it looks like Larry has killed Sealion outright with his latest incarnation.  Thanks for narrowing the options and making the game the SAME as it ever was!  1940 IS THE SAME AS 1942!!!  DOWN WITH THE SEALION OPTION AND THE SOLE REASON I BOUGHT AAE/P40 OR WAS EVEN INTERESTED IN A 1940 RULESET!  LET’S THROW A BUNCH OF SPECIALLY DESIGNED NEUTRALITY RULES AND PEACE N.O.S RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW BY NERFING THE SEALION OPTION TO “HELL IN A HANDBASKET” CHANCES OF SUCCESS!  YEAH!!!  WHATCHA DOING PIDDLING AROUND WITH ENGLAND NOW???  GET ON TRUCKING TO MOSCOW ALREADY!!!  THE RUSSIANS ARE DYING TO GET THE WAR STARTED EARLY OVER THERE!!!

@Gargantua:

Blitz, I am happy to get a 2nd game going?  Are you available? Care to post the G1?

Sure man, looks like my multi game is almost over.  It’s either going to be Moscow or Japan falling first…  fairly close.

Not exactly sure of all the rules with the new alpha plus, but I’ll look them over and look at the map setup from your thread you’ve already started.

Think cts17 wants in this game too.

Let’s fire that thread up!

Hmmm, think my other multi game is about to come to a close in the next week or so…  So, I guess I’ll accept your challenge.  I’d prefer Germany/Italy for myself, but Japan ain’t so bad either.  Anybody else want to be on an Axis team?  Send me a PM.

You might have to bear with me with all the new rules/NOs in the Alpha + setup, as they seem to change every month or so, but hopefully this game is finally feeling somewhat balanced now.  Definitely want to try out the new scramble rules, the Pacific was a retard-fest last game with all the planes involved on ABs.

Also, hopefully they get the problems worked out with the forum server, I’m getting x50 timeout errors like every other time I try to log on.

@gsh34:

Guys,

Thanks for trying this out.  Calvin, did you also have Japan shuttling troops across northern China so that a constant supply of Japanese troops would be arriving at J5?  Would six to eight Japanese troops a turn even matter against Russia in this scenario?  Did you see any thing that showed promise about this strategy?  Do you think this could be something possible to do after a successful Sealion so the transports are utilized?

I wish I knew how to view your map download.  Can you explain that please?

I think after a Sealion you’re going to be using those transports to reinforce England or Germany first before you get a chance to worry about Russia.  But, if you can keep them alive long enough, sure.

Oh, ABattlemap’s link.

http://www.axisandallies.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=67