Posts made by SilverAngelSurfer

Well, I’ve been reading all this stuff about Canadian roundels and one power having split income with everyone 99.9% sure that it’ll be the UK, and while the idea that the UK’s income will be split between India and Great Britain (i.e. all UK territories from the Pacific half of the game will give income to India and all UK territories from the Europe half of the game will give income to Great Britain) sounds like a decent enough plan, I think that it doesn’t fit with the already established no-split US.

One of the things that Larry seems to have been doing with the game recently is expanding from the initial simplified setup of combining the whole English commonwealth into the UK, lumping China in with the US, and packaging Italy into Germany that we had with all the versions so far except AA50.  Now we know we already have a separate Italy, China, ANZAC, and all the neutral countries actually being represented on the board; so the other obvious sovereign nation that should receive separate representation is Canada (hence the “do you want canada as a power?” thread)/  India and South Africa were still more or less colonies of the UK at the time, but Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were independent nations, so it makes some sense that colonies would still provide income to the Mother Country, but independent nations wouldn’t provide income directly, even with trade and such (which isn’t represented in A&A anyway).  Separating Australia/New Zealand from the UK as ANZAC works for gameplay by putting more into the Pacific theater, but separating Canada from the UK wouldn’t serve much purpose historically or gameplay-wise as they worked so closely together and there are already enough European-focused Allied countries.

If you combine this “expansion” idea with the information we know about Canada having different roundels on its territories and the hint about UK (presumably) having a split income, I think I’ve come up with another scenario that Larry could be doing with Europe and the Global game: UK/Canada as a combo “power”!  Canada has its own separate income from its own territories that it spends at its own IC (indicative of an independent country), but Canada and the UK fight together with conglomerate troops (indicative of their military cooperation).  No messy “joint-strike” rules.  The UK/Canada team can build its navy in Canada safely away from any German planes and could defend Canada better in case of a KAF attack by the Japanese.  There won’t be any cardboard roundels for Canada because any new territories captured would go to the UK, as is more accurate historically.  This would be waaay less messy than trying to figure out whether a captured territories’ income goes to India or Great Britain and would fit with a power’s income not being forced to go specifically to one theater or the other.

I don’t think Larry is ready to go to the level of complexity necessary to account for transportation of income across oceans, I think he’s leaving it the same it has always been except for adding convoys, and this explanation accounts for Canada being the other “semi-major” power of the UK commonwealth along with ANZAC, the Canadian roundels, and the split income hint: everything!  :mrgreen:

@Funcioneta:

Philippines? Come on, dutchs or Spain would have more chances of being a power!  :-D Well, I’d love seeing Spain as a neutral “playable” power, one that could join any side in some rare cases. Maybe with split income with the power they join, as Canada/UK. Wet dreams, of course

Why not Confederacy (as axis power would shine!)? Gibraltar? Carthago?  :mrgreen:

Or why not Poland?  :-P  Take the scenario back a year more and Germany has even more to do before the other powers enter the war…  :wink:

@allboxcars:

Thanks for your detailed response. However I must contest your historic ratings:

@SilverAngelSurfer:

France:
Napoleonic Empire, considered to have the “best” military in the world at the time, plus a major political and economic power in Europe (which is still true today, but beside the point)
Historic “individuality” points - 3

Contrary to that hype, crashed and burned into a non-entity faster than most child actors.
Historic “individuality” points - 1

@SilverAngelSurfer:

Italy:
Ancient Roman Empire, also a big economic and political player in Europe(though not as much as France, UK, or Germany): enough to be considered one of the “big 3” Axis nations
Historic “individuality” points - 2

At the operational level never met an enemy that they couldn’t surrender fast enough to, another non-entity.
Historic “individuality” points - 1

@SilverAngelSurfer:

Canada:
Colony of UK and part of Commonwealth (major influence by UK), coordinated mostly with UK’s “Europe first” strategy, but still contributed greatly to war effort
Historic “individuality” points – 0.75

The vital Mid-Atlantic convoy routes fell under the command of a Canadian Admiral and the RCN proved very effective at ASW. In addition, Canada ran the Commonwealth Air Training Program and had sufficient manpower and influence to have their own beach on D-Day.
Historic “individuality” points - 1.5

Now, I’m not suggesting for gameplay purposes that Canada should be a separate player but in terms of history of WW2, I don’t think you can claim France and Italy were Major Powers and Canada was not… unless you’re working from Hollywood’s Big Book of American Miracles, in which case America won the war singlehandedly and despite British Snobbery & Blundering… Canada Who?

My “historic points” have to do with reasons they should be individual powers, not anything to do with their overall strength, but I grant that Canada probably deserves more historic points.  :mrgreen:  As stated in the post, my points system is arbitrary, and flawed besides; I should give ANZAC more gameplay points for one because the inclusion of ANZAC has EVERYTHING to do with adding more playability to the Pacific.

I’m not saying Canada had nothing to do with the war or even very little.  I know Canada made major contributions, and long before the US got off its collective rear end.  This isn’t a US vs. Canada post.  The US probably watched most of the world go to pot before they did anything if Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl and ticked everyone off.  :roll:

*Edit:  I adjusted my points system slightly in the previous post if anyone really cares…  :-P *

@allboxcars:

Well, historic importance and having a claim to an empire really don’t signify into whether or not a country is a major power in WW2 or in A&A. Neither Spain nor Portugal will be major powers and I’ll leave it up to you to posture that America has an Empire.

In terms of contributions to the Allied effort, Canada far outstrips France and in terms of game play, well if Paris Ontario falls before Paris France then there’s a serious problem.

heavily edited from original post for simplicity and clarity’s sake

Empires have nothing to do with it, I was merely stating what historically made a nation considered “great” or a “major player” as far as European thinking went.  And as far as Spain and Portugal, they were “neutral” (completely different than any of the other nations being discussed) and since A&A doesn’t include any other neutral countries as separate countries, that’s a moot point altogether regardless of their level of historic influence or affluence in Europe.

Most ideas for Axis and Allies come from a historical perspective and are then usually adopted or shot down only after they are considered from a gameplay perspective.  This idea is the same thing.  You can’t argue that Canada has better merit than France from a gameplay perspective with a historic argument like “Canada contributed more than France”.  If you were lookng merely from a gameplay standpoint, it’d make more sense to add another power to Africa or the Pacific than adding Canada, but that would ruin the historical basis of Axis and Allies.

So, since we have to consider both the historical and gameplay points, let’s look at the countries in question again… (using my own arbitrary scoring system that whoever wants to can argue, but it’s for effect)

France:
Napoleonic Empire, considered to have the “best” military in the world at the time, plus a major political and economic power in Europe (which is still true today, but beside the point)
Historic “individuality” points - 3
Gives Germany something to do before USSR or US join in the war, and gives the Allies another country when liberated
Gameplay “individuality” points - 1

Italy:
Ancient Roman Empire, also a big economic and political player in Europe(though not as much as France, UK, or Germany): enough to be considered one of the “big 3” Axis nations
Historic “individuality” points - 2
Gives the “Axis team” another player opportunity, opens up the Africa battle a little more by having Italy more focused on Africa leaving Germany more focused on Europe
Gameplay “individuality” points - 2

China:
Large focus of Japan’s “expansion” was focused on China, non-colony sovereign nation under “influence” of several competing nations (USSR, US, UK, and Japan)
Historic “individuality” points – 2
Gives Allies an anti-Japan/Pacific-focused nation, plus “speed-bump” to keep Japan from getting to Moscow as fast, while not allowing for silly American ICs in China
Gameplay “individuality” points – 2

ANZAC:
Former colony of UK and part of Commonwealth (major influence by UK), but coordinated more with the US against Japan in the Pacific where they could be more directly influential on the war as opposed to Europe
Historic “individuality” points – 1.5
Gives the Allies a second anti-Japan/ Pacific-focused nation (an area of the war most people agree needs more development in A&A)
Gameplay “individuality” points – 2

Canada:
Former colony of UK and part of Commonwealth (major influence by UK), coordinated mostly with UK’s “Europe first” strategy, but still contributed greatly to war effort
Historic “individuality” points – 1.25
Gives the Allies another Europe-focused nation with limited influence on Pacific theater
Gameplay “individuality” points – 0.5

Now let me throw in some other nations that could be added to the game also, but never will be…

Hungary:
Offshoot of Austro-Hungarian Empire from WWI, but no longer a major player in Europe and followed Germany’s lead
Historic “individuality” points – 1
Gives the Axis another playable country since there will be twice as many Allied countries in 1940 in comparison to the Axis
Gameplay “individuality” points – 0.75

Romania:
Not much influence on Europe, followed Germany’s lead
Historic “individuality” points – 0.75
Gives the Axis another playable country since there will be twice as many Allied countries in 1940 in comparison to the Axis
Gameplay “individuality” points – 0.75

Philippines:
Protectorate of US attacked by Japan
Historic “individuality” points - 0.10
Gives Allies a third anti-Japan/Pacific-focused country, though easily taken by Japan
Gameplay “individuality” points – 0.75

Final Score:
France – 4 points
Italy – 4 points
China – 4 points
ANZAC – 3.5 points
Canada – 1.75 points
Hungary - 1.75 points
Romanaia – 1.5 points
Philippines - 0.85 points  :wink:

Having Canada as a separate power at some point in the future or as a house rule would be cool and most certainly viable (and it looks like we might still get some kind of exclusive Canada rule of some kind with the specific Canadian roundels), but my point was that to compare Canada to France or Italy and suggest that Canada should be an individual power before France or Italy doesn’t make much sense, either gameplay-wise or historically.

France was at least supposed to be a major power, until they got majorly stomped on by the Germans.  Italy is a little different, but as far as I know they only became more subservient to Germany only after the war began.  Though Italy never really was a major power on par with the others that we think of during the 20th century, the three major Axis powers—Germany, Japan, and Italy—were part of a military alliance on the signing of the Tripartite Pact in September 1940, which officially founded the Axis powers.

France and England have pretty much been the major powers of Europe for centuries, with Germany and Italy having more historic influence that was declining as they went into the 20th century, which was part of why they were looking to reestablish themselves in the first place.  It was a big surprise when France fell so quickly.  Canada doesn’t have any kind of historic claim to empires like Germany or Italy had, nor does it have any modern claim like UK and France have (they’re still 2 of the 5 permanent Security Council nations with veto power in the UN).

If you’ll notice, the current Allied countries that will be playable in the new version (with the exception of ANZAC) are the 5 permanent Security Council nations: US, UK, France, Russia, and China (though China was in the midst of civil war in WWII).

I have a question that I wanted to check on to be sure.  UK has a destroyer and a sub in z6, while Germany has a transport in z5 and various planes, but no other naval units, and Germany decides to try to invade Great Britain.

Now, a sub by itself would not block the transport from invading Britain, and the planes would be able to take out the destroyer by itself in a sea battle before the amphibious invasion, but it would be true that if a sea battle was started between the planes and the destroyer in z6 as a precursor to the amphibious assault on Great Britain, the sub could stay in combat by not submerging and wouldn’t be able to hit the planes nor be hit by them, correct?  So when the planes sink the destroyer and it’s only planes and the sub in battle, they can’t hit each other, so that means the sub would sink the transport, since there are no other available targets, correct?

This seems like a tricky way of doing it, but I don’t see any reason from the rules that it wouldn’t work, so I wanted to ask here to see what you all think (and if it comes to it, what Krieghund rules).

It means the game is more likely to play out differently because your opponent does not have to capture a capital to win, but that depends on your opponent and whether they’re just going to try for the capitals anyway.

@The:

@robbie358:

Fighters are gonna be SO valuable for UK in this game.  The ability to sortie out of Britain to protect your new naval builds is gonna put alot of pressure on the German aircraft.  Or if theres a complex in Canada, UK can just build its navy there I guess and bring it over when it has enough planes.

So UK is gonna have to worry about protecting its Atlantic Navy with fighters while securing it’s convoys, building units in India to protect against Japan, and sending forces to Africa to fend of Italy.

I think they’re gonna be the most fun country to play in this game.

Yea, I agree that they should be… But will they? If Scotland is to be a territory, then Britain will no longer be an island, so will fighters on Britain still be able to scramble to protect their fleets? I think they should, b/c what’s the difference between england and Japan? But I don’t know what the rules will be. And sign me up for play-testing any day, free of charge.

If England is going to be two territories and therefore can’t scramble, it will be so annoying!  What is the point of making England two territories anyway when Japan is one and the entire eastern seaboard of the US is one?  I could understand if they do that so that UK can’t scramble its planes in 5 different sea zones from a single territory, that makes sense (Scotland can scramble to 2 & 3, maybe 6; England can scramble to 6, 7, & 8’), but otherwise I’ll be very upset if Great Britain isn’t an exception to the “only islands can scramble, and islands are a single territory surrounded by sea zones” rule.  :x

I think it depends upon your definition of “useful” or “very useful”; if by “very useful” you mean that cruisers are a unit you would buy in all situations, then they are not “very useful”, but no unit fits that definition…  With the new naval rules transports and subs are out as fodder (with subs not being usable as such against air if your opponent doesn’t have a destroyer), so the new “infantry of the sea” is the destroyer.  So yes, if you’re going for pure defensive utility destroyers are your best bet for single units, while the 2 fighter/carrier combo has the better defensive punch to IPC ratio.  However, naval units are not all about defense, and the limits of production capability and availability also provide problems.

I think the naval units are much more balanced for usefulness than the land units might be; at least cruisers are useful for more efficient bombardment in comparison to battleships, while artillery really isn’t that useful in comparison to tanks (though tanks at 6 IPC as in AAP40 gives artillery a little more value in comparison to artillery vs. tanks at 5 IPC).  Carrier units and destroyers provide the best defensive value, but the fighters are more vulnerable in amphibious assaults than bombarding cruisers or battleships; especially in the European theater where you can usually still get your fighters to the site of battle without carriers anyway, so why not use both planes and bombardment for more offensive power?  None of the naval units is an all-powerful, all-purpose unit; they each have their drawbacks, and everyone can argue about which of the drawbacks are worse, but it would seem that would depend upon the situation that presents itself.  So maybe all we need is some more love in this thread…  :wink:

So you can recon any adjacent territories whenever you want, or is there a limited number of recons per turn?  And to recon more distant territories you need to do an aerial recon which has a chance of failure…  Quite interesting.  I take it you need one map for the axis and one map for the allies?  Sounds like a cross between A&A and Battleship, if I’m getting this right.  :mrgreen:

Which is probably why the Heavy Bombers Tech has been nerfed so much from the original.

It certainly sounds interesting.

Both destroyers and cruisers have a punch to cost ratio of 0.25 (2/8 & 3/12), so I don’t see how destroyers are better defensively except that you could get more pieces (3 destroyers for 24 IPCs vs. 2 cruisers); however, that’s like saying you should ONLY purchase infantry for defense and never purchase tanks or fighters (though the punch/cost ratio correlation is also different).  While it’s true that infantry and destroyers are the most efficient defensive pieces because they’re cheaper and you can get more of them, you also want some pieces that will boost your skew and be more likely to score some hits per round of battle.

@moompix:

No, they are stronger overall.

An old carrier that took one hit could land just as many planes.

I think this is the major point.  Previously, if the carrier gets hit, that’s it; no place to land the planes, no way to get those IPCs back.  Now, you get a (relatively) free hit absorbed allowing the carrier to stick around.  If you don’t have anywhere else to land the planes if your carrier has to take a hit, then leave it out of the combat, otherwise, you take it in and take your chances, and just have to send the damaged ones backward for repair while the newly produced ones come up front; before you just sent new carriers up from behind without the chance to salvage the old ones.  2 IPCs extra cost isn’t a bad trade for that IMO.

Or if you have a middle button on your mouse (in addition to the left and right buttons) that will delete units in the same way without having to choose DEL first.

@Raeder:

@i:

how does switzerland win :? :?

Switzerland always wins.  :-D

Switzerland always wins (and especially in WWII) because they have all the banks, and no matter which side won, they made all the money.  :-P  That’s a major reason why they were able to remain neutral.  So dakgoalie38’s right that if there are no winners in war, then Switzerland wins because they didn’t fight, and they made all the money.  :wink:

@The:

I don’t think any of these ideas will be in the game (although I would definitely enjoy having them). But if we’re on the subject, I think that the Atomic Bomb should be a research or something. And not just for the U.S. b/c other countries were doing things with nuclear fission as well (I think). But it should be like a special research (expensive or something) so that usually only the U.S. will be able to afford the endeavor. Thoughts?

The Germans were definitely trying to develop the A-bomb during the war too, so it would definitely have to be open to all countries.  The US just happened to get it to work first, partially due to scientists like Einstein who left Europe because of the Nazis.

“During Japan’s turn, at the start of any sea combat in sea zones 58, 59, 60 or 61, the Japanese player can attack one Allied surface sea unit (not a submarine) with Kamikaze. This attack occurs before the first round of combat, and any casualty is removed before the battle begins (if a battleship is hit once, turn it on its side - if two 1’s are rolled, the battleship is removed from play). If a carrier is selected as the target, any fighters aboard that carrier are assumed to have been launched before the kamikaze attack and may defend in the air normally in the ensuing battle, whether or not the carrier is sunk. The aircraft used for the Kamikaze planes are not represented on the board. To make the attack, the Japanese player indicates which ship is being targeted and rolls two dice. For each “1” rolled a hit is scored. Only one Kamikaze attack may be made per turn.”

Doesn’t say anything about using a fighter for this attack.  As far as I can tell, it’s just an extra attack.

@Veqryn:

the inclusion of NO’s changes it from a “better win soon as the axis or you are doomed”, to a “better win soon as the allies or you are doomed” game for aa50

I can see that, especially as the Axis NOs are easier to get earlier in the game (in general), whereas more of the Allied NOs come once the Allies have already gained some ground.

Well, I still think cruisers are very useful, but you’ll be happy to know that I have reconsidered my evaluation of battleships.  Cruisers and destroyers both have a punch/IPC ratio of 0.25, and while battleships have a punch/IPC ratio of 0.20, with their ability to absorb a hit, it about makes up for that loss if they don’t get sunk the first battle you have them in.  With a cruiser/destroyer combo, you get two rolls and 1 extra punch vs. a battleship, but after 1 hit for each, the battleship gets 1 extra punch vs. the remaining cruiser; so battleships get a better skew value since you lose none of your punch after 1 hit.  So I now view battleships vs. cruisers with UK & US like I view fighters vs. tanks with USSR: if you don’t end up killing them right away, they pay for themselves by their extra versatility.

Because of this I have made my first battleship purchase in the AA50 '41 game I’m playing with Gornsdorf, so we’ll see how that goes.  :mrgreen: