Best posts made by SuperbattleshipYamato

@The-Janus

I looked through the game. While your situation was certainly ideal for attacking the strict neutrals, I think you probably would’ve won without it (I’m not saying you implied that, I’m just adding on).

@The_Good_Captain

I like the Constantinople idea the best. It’s also historically accurate. I always thought it was weird the Allies could easily traverse in and out of the Black Sea when historically it was closed off for most of the war by the Ottomans.

It certainly sounds balanced. I might take some of the easier to implement rules (number 5 is almost impossible to implement on TripleA) for a spin on TripleA. Thanks for the ideas!

:+1: :+1:

@king_of_tanks

Definitely. I hate those people.

But yeah, that last sentence works for any country like France, Yugoslavia, Greece, and China.

@all-encompassing-goose

Germany should at least be able to move units through Bulgaria, for accuracy. Sure, Germany could invade the Caucasus, but that’s the world of geopolitics. I like making the Black Sea more lively, and the balance rules seem alright.

@farmboy

Exactly. I even sent the guy some games that are more realistic.

@The-Janus

Some thoughts (sorry it took so long, I’ve been busy over the past month:

1. I like to go for 106. If I’m playing to completely destroy 110 and 111, those submarines and needed though to provide enough firepower in case of a scramble. Even though 2 subs on 1 destroyer only gives an 86% chance of winning, the transport in 106 is worth it. It’s the opening battle I’m most certain of doing.
2. I personally find the 84% chance of winning with 2 German submarines against a British cruiser too low, especially since there isn’t a transport as a reward for victory.
3. The rest of your first turn air-sea moves operate with the mindset of simply strafing the 111 fleet rather than destroying it, like I usually do. Since you value aircraft more than ships (even beyond their inherent IPC value), it’s an understandable move. I’ll try it out sometime.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

This video explains pretty well why 1914 is heavily inbalanced in favor of the Allies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKy093860mk

And his channel also explains the optimal Allied strategies. I highly suspect you’re playing the Allies wrong (I was like that too the first few times I played).

The Good Captain is on this forum too, so if you have any questions you can contact him.

As for downloading 1914 on TripleA, try this file:

https://www.mediafire.com/file/kbxa9m7vlk5o7dp/world_war_i_1914_improved.zip/file

You don’t actually have to pay to download it.

If you have any trouble contact @The_Good_Captain or @VictoryFirst .

5 Ratte tanks and 12 Maus tanks vs one Scharnhorst class battleship with 11 inch guns.

Who will win this insane battle? The tanks start on a flat, long, big, cliff overlooking the water. Distances are the effective firing ranges of the 5 inch guns of both sides.

@the-captain

Wow! How much time do you have to play so many games? How long does each game take? I almost feel like you do this for a job. Almost.

@imperious-leader

Absolutely perfect way of saying it.

I mean if it was really one infantry or one tank the armies of the world would have serious equipment to man ratio problem.

@The-Janus

Wow. Never heard that before.

I’ve never played any other Axis and Allies game with national objectives.

I think what you wrote can be distilled down to 3 complaints:

1. There’s not much of a historical reason for this.
2. There’s not much of a game design reason for them.

On historical accuracy, most Axis and Allies games aren’t too good in this category, and I don’t think they’re particularly egregious in this regard.

The second complaint deserves a longer comment.

I think national objectives should be important to economies. What’s the point of them if they’re all just extra IPCs powers don’t really need? That seems like

complexity for the sake of complexity

to me (it’s why I think the 10 IPC bonus for the Soviets capturing Berlin is pointless-the game’s already over and the German capital is already important enough, why add that to the rules?).

Making them actually crucial to economies more powerfully incentivizes the actions the game wants you to do. I don’t see what’s

@The-Janus said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:

unintuitive… also clunky and poorly implemented

about that. I also don’t see why a logical reason why

a country’s entire economic viability shouldn’t be based off of their Objectives

should be a guiding principle in game design.

And I don’t understand why minor powers should be allowed to attack with other powers. What’s the point of them being independent in that case anyway (other than capital-threatening shenanigans)?

I also don’t see what’s wrong with certain territories being worth more to certain powers than others. Sure it’s more complex, but it’s historically true that some territories were worth more to some powers than others. For example, the Dutch East Indies weren’t worth that much to the US or the British/ANZAC-they had more than enough oil. They were absolutely crucial for the Japanese though, since they were their only source of oil.

I also think National Objectives capture an important of the real-world:

Economies of scale (kind of). Some territories are probably worth more together than they are individually. For example, the industry of the US was probably distributed all over the country, mostly depending on local economic conditions, as there was a lot of free trade within the US. Therefore, for American industry to achieve its maximum potential, the Eastern, Central, and Western parts of the lower 48 all need to be controlled by the US, which is why they get a 10 IPC bonus for controlling all 3.

The incentives for avoiding war, while toothless, are good in theory (J1 generally just needs to be much less rewarding).

As for the Swedish iron ore, it’s pretty obvious the desginers were just trying to have Sweden’s role in the game match its historical role. While Global 1940 is still pretty inaccurate, adding that national objective probably made slightly more historically accurate.

And to me at least, double printing territories seems more confusing, not less.

And I don’t think the game’s egregious imbalance is the result of national objectives, but rather the Allies having far too few starting units or the Axis having too many (that, or Soviet territory needing to be worth way more).

None of this is to say the game’s national objectives are perfect. There doesn’t seem to be much of a reason why Egypt is economically worth twice as much as it’s actual value to Germany just because it has a land unit there, for example.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Yeah, this happened to me the first time around. As I mentioned above, VictoryFirst created a version that works.

@king_of_tanks

Yes (but don’t make them run away from each other, that’s boring, and no, tanks cannot “jump” onto the Scharnhorst).

@the-captain

Awesome! I love reading these! I don’t have any yet though, as I don’t have the time to play with your new rules yet.

@the-spaceman

I finished the game. Here are the results:

The Allies won. While I’m sure some of it was due to your strategy, the AI made many mistakes, such as:

Letting China just retake many territories without putting up any resistance.

Turtling in Hong Kong for no reason.

Not building industrial complexes in China.

Barely trying to go for the Dutch East Indies.

Not putting their aircraft on their carriers, instead using them as fodder, leading to their navy being sunk quickly.

Building transports and moving them unescorted within range of Allied aircraft.

Declaring war on true neutrals.

That last one was important. It allowed the massive British army in the Middle East and Africa to move through Turkey and open up a Balkan front. While the Germans were able to deadzone Yugoslavia and cause many British casualties, it seriously diverted German forces from the Soviets. It also allowed the Soviets to collect their bonus for Lend-Lease after the recapture of Archangel.

The Germans never really had a chance to capture Moscow, despite moving next to it at times.

The US focused mainly on the Pacific, knowing that the Soviets and British could deal with the Germans.

Here’s the full game:

2023-6-3-World-War-II-Global-1940-2nd-Edition.tsvg

@nolimit

Thank you for responding!

It took me a really long time to find the game, probably several hours altogether.

You’re right-finding pieces are very rare, and usually if I find a piece in stock on Historical Board Gaming, I usually just buy the whole stock (at least as much as I need, which is usually more than the available stock). It’s sad though that the extra pieces needed the most (infantry and artillery) are the ones that are the hardest to get. The hardest pieces to get are German (although I rally want the Ottoman ones for the unique colour which is irreplaceable by World War 2 pieces), and the easiest prices to find are American. These is my personal findings, and I might be completely wrong.

Keep looking and you will be able to find it!

@king_of_tanks

On paper, it’s very even. The T-34/85 wasn’t as reliable as many people think, but it had at least an equal gun and armour to the best Sherman (jumbo).

In practise, the Sherman was superior. Poor Soviet training and tactics compared to the US repeatedly led to higher loss ratios to German armour even in 1944 while the Shermans usually lost less tanks than Germany.

Granted, these are combat losses to all causes, but Germany’s mechanical reliability should have been equal on both fronts. Note that anti-tank guns made up a majority of the losses of both sides. But we can assume that the number of tanks destroyed by Germany to anti-tank guns to be relatively equal.

However, the Western Allies had a bigger degree of air superiority than the Soviets.

@the-captain

Awesome! I can’t wait for it!

@Polishpowerhouse

You’re welcome (I know it wasn’t addressed to me, but I’m saying it anyway)!

@aadudecphdk1981

That’s expensive. As I noted in an earlier post, I wasn’t able to have it directly sent to my area. Try looking in other places that won’t necessarily ship to your neighbourhood. I’ve found many people get it in Greece (I got it in the UK), so looking internationally might help.

By the way, were you able to sell your massive collection (you’re the person with every game ever, right)? Thank you!

I’m also wondering why you would like another copy.

Good luck in your quest!