Topics created by SSPanther

@Young:

@kcdzim:

@Young:

After AA guns have fired at attacking air units (if any) they may be used as casualties during an ensuing land battle. If land units attack a territory with only AA Guns defending, they are defenseless and are removed from the board without rolling dice.

pretty sure it’s not just a land unit.  A single air unit can clear an infinite number of AA guns, assuming it makes it past that single die roll.

Interesting, clears them, but doesn’t take the territory.

Yep.  Never leave AA guns alone, just as you never leave transports alone.

Many of the ideas in this thread are incorporated into my rules set.

National advantages. Each nation is unique. The Soviets receive more manpower points than any two other nations combined, allowing them to field substantially larger infantry forces than can any other nation. However, Soviet infantry receive a modest penalty to combat effectiveness.

Japan starts the game with a bonus to the effectiveness of its torpedo bombers, because Kates were very good planes. The Soviets’ Ilyushin Il-2 tech means its dive bombers are harder to shoot down than anyone else’s. The Germans are able to advance farther than any other nation in rocket and jet technology, though available British advances in jet technology are nothing to sneeze at!

Light and heavy tank. This rules set incorporates four different classes of tanks: light tanks, medium tanks, battle tanks, and heavy tanks. The game starts off with China unable to build tanks, Japan able to build light tanks, and the Soviets, Germans, British, and Americans able to build medium tanks. Soviet medium tanks are somewhat harder to kill than the others because they had the T-34. It is possible to upgrade the quality of one’s tanks over the course of the game. For example, a level 5 light tank has twice the firepower, and is twice as hard to kill, as a level 1 light tank.

Japan can upgrade its light tanks to medium tanks. The Soviets, British, and Americans can upgrade their medium tanks to battle tanks. The Germans can upgrade their medium tanks first to battle tanks, and then to heavy tanks. However, all this upgrading would require a substantial investment in scarce, valuable EUs. EUs can be used to research new technologies, to upgrade your nation’s income, to upgrade its rail network, or to build or upgrade minor production centers. The Japanese may want to stick with light tanks, the Soviets with medium tanks, and the Germans with battle tanks, in order to free up EUs for use elsewhere. (EUs cannot be used to directly purchase military units–that’s what production units are for!)

Terrain. This rules set’s terrain system is rather simple. Level 0 terrain means no defensive bonus, level 1 terrain means that for every ten hits the defender scores, a bonus hit is added. Terrain can be up to level 10.

Atomic bomb. EUs can be used to research nuclear technology. One your level of nuclear technology is sufficiently advanced, you can use EUs to build nuclear production facilities. Each such facility produces one nuclear bomb per turn. The United States can load its nuclear bombs onto strategic bombers, which must survive a dogfight for one round before they can deliver their lethal payload. Germany must also deliver its nuclear bombs in this manner–until, that is, it gets around to researching rockets level 15. At that point, it will be able to use ICBMs to deliver nuclear payloads to any target anywhere in the world. Fortunately for the Allies, Germany cannot research rockets level 15 until the 15th game round at the earliest. Even after Germany reaches this point, the Allies can always try to use strategic bombing raids to destroy Germany’s nuclear production facilities. Of course, by this point Germany’s jets will likely be very advanced, and equipped with air-to-air rockets. That will make strategic bombing raids against Germany difficult. On the other hand, the U.S.'s late game income is nearly double that of Germany.

I’m interested in feedback about this rules set. If you have any comments or suggestions about it, please post them here. Thanks.

national objectives look fair

or you could use Phillapenes might work if us will let you

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

I think not, because a G1 attack is pretty much (read: basically always) a bad idea.

Whatever you manage to put into those first border territories will die immediately, Germany is making less money (no peace NO), Russia is making more money, Russia can go into the Middle East, and UK has no Sealion threat at all, and can plow into Italy and France starting round 1.

You’re right in that a G2 attack is a much better idea.

So USA is at war, right? How’s the situation in the DEI?

1. i hope germany won’t snatch those planes. How is the German escort fleet? (the one protecting their transports?)

2. see somewhere below.

3. Has Italy taken Gibraltar already? Take it back ASAP! or block SZ91 immediately if you can’t reach Gibraltar with enough troops.
You can pick SZ91/Gibraltar as your US bridgehead (good reach to basically everywhere)

4. Don’t retreat your Hawaii fleet, keep the pressure on Japan. You have enough money to spawn a fresh one in E-USA, strong enough to withstand Axis fleet/air.

Personally i like the Atlantic sub-approach…
Start with building some subs (about 6 or even more but make sure you don’t loose them, so always watch out for enemy destroyers withing reach) and a destroyer to get those subs around england, you’ll need 1 destroyer to send to SZ91 to block the italians. All these subs will come in very handy later (massacre of the italian fleet and convoy raids in the med (or UK if it falls). If those 2 mid-sea subs are within reach of the US coast, build at least an AC or BB this turn, and always keep at least 1 DD present.
The subs will also make Germany have to worry about their transporter fleet (either bothering their movement or making them have to invest in more ships, which is a good thing). if you have enough money, already buy an AC with 2 fighters (for ex: 6 SUB + 1 DD + AC + 2 FIG = 80IPC), this way the current fleet is completely safe.

Next turn build up your surface fleet:
You don’t need a HUGE fleet, but make sure it is more than strong enough to survive a German (possibly followed by an italian) attack. Ships cost money and bringing them to Europe costs time.
I’d say: at least 1 BB (or 2 if you can afford it), 2 AC’s (filled with 2 fighters and 2 tacs, or 3 fighters and 1 tac), at least 2 destroyers (1 to protect from crazy subs, another one to do some blocking or provoking actions oir suicide runs). never fall shoret of destroyers.

And of course a few transports.  :)

I agree with Frank T and Brado… but I build 7 more transport during G2 (which brings them to a total of 10). Italy must focus on Egypt at first (taken at I2) and then hold strong Gibraltar to sceal Med Sea and US footstep to Europe.

Battle for Russia will be long and with a slow start, but will succeed. You have to cause many frontline… and Japan should attack Russia the very first turn.

@ Rock’n Roll : Yes, I won 4 times here…

@SSPanther:

Hey Krieghund (sp?) or anyone else out there, I need to questions answered for a game we are playing now.

1. If the US is not yet at war with Japan, and flies their fighter from the Philipinnes to Burma or Kwangtung, if the Japanese then attack the British in either of those territories, does it provoke the US and bring them into the war? Or can this non-combat move even be made by the US

1. The US, while neutral, cannot move units into or over territories that do not belong to them.  They cannot move a fighter into a UK territory, and thus this example can never happen.

@SSPanther:

2. Can Russia, when not yet at war, move ships into a seazone with UK ships, and can they move into a seazone with German ships?

3. Can Russia, when not at war, move into NW Persia?

Thank you!

2. Yes

3. No, not until at war on that side of the board (so war against German or Italy).

The Alpha rules and setup can be found here.  You may also wish to see the Europe and Global Official Rules Clarifications and the Pacific FAQ.

So recently I played out a game using this system. After many rounds and one of the longest games of axis and allies I have ever endured, it was a stalemate. As Gargantua predicted, London fell. Though we had Britain with two capitals, there income was combined and allowed to be spent at either side of the board. Even after all unit builds went to London turn one, it fell turn two. So only London income was lost and the Brits fought on from India. Nevertheless Italy become a God economically and militarily. The Brits in the Med and Africa were sunk naval wise and overwhelmed on land by Italy. The German navy became large enough to contend with America, and later on in the game, Italy almost took Stalingrad and successfully took Calcutta for one turn and also controlled all of the middle east. Japan was effectively contained by America, Britain, China and ANZAC and suffered huge losses after very early wins. Japan doesnt stand much of a chance we decided. Russia got hit hard by German attacks and Itailian attacks on their flanks through the middle east. Russia also rolled terribly. But their navy was strong and the capital never fell. America was hard pressed and couldnt fight Germany effectively while also dealing with Japan. It was mostly string after string of failed landings in Africa and the British mainland while sending a token navy to assist the rest of the allies in the Pacific.

Overall, the system sped the game up tremendously and kept all players focused. I find it to be balanced decently. The axis seemed very strong early in the game and kept the allies at bay except in the Pacific. Britain’s economies should be combined probably, but with a better experienced British player this just might create hell for the axis. Great house rule and I will be playing again with my group this way soon.

Paratroopers don’t move in noncombat movement.

Yes.

Subs carry 8 torpedeos and destroyers carry 9 depth charges. Subs can fire 2 torpedeos and destroyers can fire 3 depth charges a turn. Sub attack at 5, defend at 4. Destroyer attack and defend at 4. Subs can be submerged when firing. This is using a 12 sided die.

@lnmajor:

@Fishmoto37:

@SSPanther:

What do you guys out there think about the concept towed artillery, that is mechanized infantry being able to move artillery with it on a 1:1 basis?

We are using this in our current game. Works great! We are using Tigerman’s map along with other house rules. One of the main improvements we are working on is improving the submarine rules. The OOB rules for subs in the 1940G game are weak!

what are you doing with subs

The sub rule we are trying now is 2-1-2 unit as in 1940G OOB but each DD that is declared a sub hunter rolls a die and sinks the sub on a one and locates on a two. Located or detected subs can then be attacked by CAs or additional DDs. If sub survives first round of combat then it defends at one or submerges.

Blockhouse cost 2, defend at 3 or less, can stack but not move.

Blockhouse cost 6 and boost all Infantry and artillery +1 on defense all rounds up to the IPC value of the territory.

A 4 IPC space will only boost 4 units of these types +1.

If taken over fortification is destroyed.

I support Gamerman01

I’m still thinking the 2 dollar Russians are unbeatable.  unless they are 1-1 or 0-2 or something.

Bring in all the mec/arm combinations and double supporting artillery you want.  at 37 IPC’s a turn, I’m putting 18 men on the board each round.  Germany is not going to be able to do anything about that.

Oh and lets not forget, once I have a fat stack, if things don’t look good, I can call in the Russian winter, and defend with a $2 unit at 3 or less.