Best posts made by simon33

Would have had you without those edits.

I dislike the fighter buy on USSR1. You have plenty of factories at this time, no threat of SBR and no need whatsoever for the fighter. Better to buy it later when you are building solely in Moscow and can’t spend more than 30 IPC on inf. It is useful later but mostly only needed when the German bombers are in SBR range.

Artillery is a bit more useful because you can at least threaten a counter attack with it.

A Chinese guerrilla will spawn in Hopei at the start of the Chinese turn if I don’t get a land unit there. The USSR attack on Anwhe was ill advised. A guerrilla would spawn there otherwise. We can edit that if you like.

@taamvan:

We spieled all this out a few months ago, but you can also take the 4 Italian territories, in continental Africa, and Iraq, with Russia and get +12-15 extra bucks.

Which is a very cheesy loophole in the rules.

Other territories are coastal and not eligible for guerrillas.

Allies are hard to play effectively. You need to do enough to hold on to Moscow without stripping every other front of troops. While also maintaining the Soviet income at a reasonable level. Hanging on to Moscow itself is a pretty significant challenge.

@trulpen said in Post League Game Results Here:

simon33 - trulpen 1-0

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34864/trulpen-allies-vs-simon33-x-bm3-no-ij-ok/208

Allies had the upper hand after a neutral crush but Axis stole pacific victory without Shanghai! Crazy.

@aequitas-et-veritas said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

The situation is this, that @surfer starts in a hostile sz

More specifically, it is not a hostile SZ because it contains no enemy surface warships.

Eur rules, p8: “Sea zones are either friendly or hostile. Friendly sea zones contain no surface warships (this doesn’t include
submarines and transports) belonging to a power with which you are at war. Hostile sea zones contain surface warships
belonging to a power with which you are at war.”

Perhaps there needs to be errata issued then.

@trulpen said in Post League Game Results Here:

Like I said. I suck.

Cheer up, you’re higher on the ladder than I.

Right. But that represents Axis, so that change should not be made.

No, let’s just continue. I might get lucky.

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

There are 2 scenarios.

If you play 1941 with the Dardanelles strait open, yes it favors the Axis hugely. But if you close the Dardanelles, not so much.

1942 was pretty balanced IIRC. Don’t remember bids.
AA50 is on Triple A although China looks weird compared to the actual game board.

Really, I remember 1941 (v6) being hugely unbalanced. Maybe it really swings on those straits, don’t remember that bit. Don’t think I played it more than once after seeing it though, massive backwards step.

1942 - do you mean classic? Think that was a bit biased towards the allies even if you made Russia restricted. Didn’t play v2 (revised), v3 (aa50) or v4 (Spring 1942) but v5 started biased towards axis but then there was a revised setup known as 42.3 which evened things up a lot.

Karl7 also thinks aa50 was the best one OOB, although I doubt I could step back to that. Also it was out of print for a long time. So I never got into it.

I will go the scramble, and Max D.

In Iwo Jima, if you get a hit first round take the bomber or bombers.

Attacking units don’t make the SZ hostile.

Full scramble from Novgorod

@gamerman01 what is so special about AA50 technology vs G40? Just looked at the rule and it seems almost identical except for Paratroopers being carried on bombers, long range aircraft being +2, stronger heavy bombers and mech inf being different (probably more beneficial). Ok, I guess that is a bit of a list there. You can easily house rule the tokens part of it.

Perhaps it just played better because if you lost a game because of tech at least it wasn’t such a time sink.

If there is serious interest I could (I expect) retrofit some or all of the above into the Parisian Rebalance.

Are you aware of the consequences of the DD in SZ6? Your fleet needs to flee or expose itself to Kamis.

A couple of things I never liked about tech are
(a) paratroopers - don’t like the being carried on a bomber and don’t like the G40 magical flying infantry. Why isn’t there an air transport like in some maps, and why is it a tech at all? Didn’t basically all nations have it at the start of the war? Never heard of USSR paratroops but doesn’t mean they didn’t or couldn’t have had them.
(b) don’t like the implementation of Anniversary rockets in Triple-A where you can’t have multiple rockets targeting the same territory. That isn’t in the original rules although it is in the FAQ. I think there may be a map option for this but it isn’t editable.
© don’t like Kreighund’s decision in G40 that rockets are resolved before strat bombing decisions on which target in a given territory is attacked, which can vary the strat bombing decisions.

Tech in G40 can cause some really frustrating outcomes such as if your opponent rolls long range aircraft which suddenly puts more planes in range of territories you thought were safe. Urgh! But the same thing applied in Anniversary. Not sure how reasonable it is to need to consider this risk.

Anniversary didn’t have air battles before strat bombing quite right. Nor did v5. I find BM the best even though I don’t love the automatic inbuilt AA. Seems there is no ideal solution to this one.

wrt heavy bombers I think I like the Anniversary idea better but it is certainly the strongest of all techs and I can see why it was further nerfed in G40. Maybe it would be better if it was a hit on a 6 or less (auto hit) and max 1 dice damage for heavy bombers? I find G40 heavy bombers a bit weak really, although they are a notable improvement for strat bombing.

Also, Jet fighters are a bit weak. Maybe +1 for attack and defence.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on tech.

Very happy to have finally killed all the Soviet ground troops. You got your money’s worth out of them.

When i first started playing we did a similar move but really fighting uk too much is a distraction for Germany which needs to focus on taking out ussr