Posts made by The Hessian

Or leave the Mech.Inf. completely out of your games.

@CWO:

…
The theory behind a nuclear winter (as I understand it) is that a global nuclear war would pump vast quantities of smoke and fine particulate matter into the upper atmosphere, where it would reflect away enough sunlight to lower the planet’s temperature and disrupt the ecosystem.  This is essentially what killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, when an asteroid hit the Earth and vaporized a large piece of the planet’s crust.  Climate change on this scale doesn’t happen overnight.  A global nuclear exchange, by contrast, is something that can happen within a matter of hours.
…

You understood it right and gave a good summary of this event.

@Der:

Hessian - my arms research system was posted here a while back - it’s basically the same as my last posts about it there. (updates)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32623.0

Thank you Kuenstler! These HR looks very interesting. I think I should give it a try in our next game.

Hi everyone,
as Argothair, barney & Black_Elk already mentioned, the threat of a nuclear winter was not given by the mid-1940’s . The existing bombs were not “efficient” enough to achieve such a level of destruction. The blast of the Hiroshima-bomb had the equivalent of 13 kilotons of TNT. While the blast of later hydrogen bombs like ‘Castle Bravo’ in 1954 had the equivalent of 15 megatons.
An other important fact that prohibits a nuclear winter is that by the end of the war the USA had produced “only” four A-bombs (Trinity, Little Boy, Fat Man & an unnamed one).

Regarding Der-Künstler’s question if the warring countries would have agreed to cease using the nukes and returned to conventional weapons? Or would they have cease fired totally?
It’s hard to guess. Ithink the democracies might have agreed to cease using the nukes and returned to conventional weapons. If the dictators would is the big question. For example, it is said that Hitler refused to use gas in WW2 after his personal experience of WW1, but on the other hand you have his Nero-Decree in 1945. I certainly doubt that Stalin or General Tojo would cease to use nukes if they could get them.

@Der  Künstler: I’m curious to read about your arms research chart? Could you please tell us more about it? What are the preconditions for the a-bomb? A couple of weeks ago, we tested the “going nuclear” rules from historicalboardgaming.com but the a-bomb was way to expansive to build.

Well I still don’t see a fair chance that a German Invasion into the US will succeed. (Btw. in most of our games there is no Italian fleet left to exit into the Atlantic and clear of any US-blockers.)
But on the other hand, 10+ German transports protected by a strong navy will certainly do very much damage to UK, Russia or the Middle East. A very tough situation for the Allies!
And Japan will be very pleased to see nearly 100% of the purchased US troops go to the European board.

@Sire:

I play very often with a friend who is very effective at defending Egypt. He build an Egyptian IC UK1. He also brings the loaded indian TT+navy and the loaded Med TT to Ethiopia. The Indian air force goes to Brithish Somaliland. All this stuff goes to Egypt UK2 with the surviving Maltese planes and three new infantries. The BB follows next round with the remaining indian airplane. And just in case, he places two loaded TT in South Africa to take back Egypt UK3. Most of the time, it’s enough to stop the Axis or discourage them (Me!) to go for for Africa/Middle East.

Sire Fred,
what is you’re axis-strategy to Counter this UK offensive? Did he sink the Italian fleet on his first turn?

No knp7765 I’ve never heard about this strategy until now.
But to have any chance of success prior to the fall of UK you need a substantial landing force, a navy to protect it and a naval base within reach of the east coast.
For the naval base, there are only three locations: Gibraltar, Spain (or Portugal) or Iceland. Any attempt to make this preparations should alert the US-player. With his 52 IPC’s – if not already at war – building a couple if fighters and subs or destroyers should be no problem. After the entry into the war a stack of 10+ infantry should be enough to repel most invasions.
In this case the greatest danger lies in the forced neglecting of the pacific by the USA for on or two rounds; a great help for the Japanese to finish of UK-Pac and/or ANZAC

@calvinhobbesliker:

… Would it be better to just build a factory in Persia and defend Africa by building in South Africa?

I think this is the best strategy. These to locations are out of Italian reach for the first couple of turns and an IC in Persia could quickly deliver troops to India if threatened by the Japanese.

I don’t think that the political system of a nation is the determining factor whether it could move a capitol or not. In late 1941 there were preparations to move the Russian government out of Moscow. In 1914 an in 1940 again the French cabinet fled to Bordeaux.
But for my A&A games – an maybe for my A&A 1940 only – this rule should only be installed for the British. Anyway, whichever house rule fits to your gaming group is up to you and your group.

Okay, it is a nice idea that Stalin flees to the Ural or Novosibirsk after the fall of Moscow – like in many computer games. And I’m sure a American government would move to the west coast.
But on the other hand, after playing A&A for over 20 years I’ve never seen a serious invasion of the US-mainland. Every time the axis won, they achieved victory via capturing Moscow, London, victory cities, economic victory (like in the 1985 game) or a moral victory (A&A Pacific 2001).

Yes, all players. Incl. Germany.
The decision was made after the fall of London. We all agreed that it would be more realistic that an exiled British government would stay in Canada in stead of moving into a war-ravaged London. Of cause the German player was keen on looting again, but by turn 5 he was caught in a severe fight for Moscow and his fleet was sunken twice at Gibraltar.

We used this HR in our first A&A-Global-1940 game. The fall of London in turn 3 ("Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United Kingdom was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of Germany. ") was a severe blow for the Allies. Giving the UK-income to Germany and therefore no UK-purchase on turn 3 was hard but it didn’t end the war as in previous games.
In fact on turn 5 an US-Inavsion (“Operation Torch”) liberated London. Btw. all players agreed that the UK capital should remain in Ottawa fro the rest of the war.

Let these three Infantry stay put is the best option.
Egypt: If Italy really want to get Egypt, you need every unit for defence. Especially if the Taranto-Raid did not occur or failed. Needless to say that they should be the first casualties. Sorry lads!
Persia: A nice idea. But UK needs the 2 IPC’s and the place for the IC. Australian money should be invested in a fleet (sub’s?!) to harass the IJN and the Japanese convoys.
Malaya: Since it took too long to move this guy to the “Treasure Islands” (aka Dutch East Indies), let him dug in and wait for the Japanese invasion.

@General:

Spain, Portugal and their respective colonies should be tied together so that any attack on a Spanish TT turns Portugal against you and vice versa.

Indeed! That’s the way A&A1940 is played in our gaming group. And btw. an attack or the activation of any of the three Persian territories should affect all three of them.

A nice question/idea for the “House Rule Section”.
I the classic MB rules from 1985 it was in general forbidden to enter neutrals, except you paid 3 ICP’s.
I wouldn’t make the bribed country random. Just imagine you’ve tried this thing several times and finally activate Liberia or say Bolivia. :-D

I’ve misunderstood you indeed. But I still think this house rule might tip the chances too much in favour of the allies.
On the other hand it’s hard to imagine that Sweden or Switzerland would mobilize their armies to support Hitler after an US invasion of Spain.
But that’s the nice thing about house rules; everyone is free to experiment with them as he sees fit and it pleases his gaming group. :-)

As for your thoughts on Spain and the U.S. Being too much of good guys to take, it I also run into that problem. What if there were a house rule which said that Spain is NOT an axis minor, BUT an allied power may attack Spain without provoking true neutrals to become axis?

I think such a house rule would be a huge disadvantage for the axis.
If you want to play with fire – attacking strictly neutrals – you should be prepared to burn your fingers!
And I can’t help myself, but a fascist Spain ruled by Franco is everything but a pro allied minor.

Hi everyone,

in our last game – A&A global 1940 – we’ve experimented with these rules. (Available for free download on historicalboardgaming.com.)
While the effects of a nuclear bomb are well simulated (Especially when you remember that it’s a bomb of the “1st Generation”; no H-Bomb of the late 60’s that can wipe out a whole Region).
The problem is that the bomb is way too expensive. The only nation that can afford a nuclear research program is the USA. And even for them it’s better to wage a conventional war.

Greetings,
Lars

Hi Oztea,

look’s like a nice Scenario. I think I will give it a try on our next game. But why do you eliminate the “Kamikaze-Rule” from this game?

Ryuzaki_Lawliet: I think Finland must be controlled by Germany (as there are German troops inside).
I would add all naval & air bases listed in the original 1940 Scenario and adjust the IPC-income according to the value of the actual controlled territories.

Btw. has anybody thought about some Kind of "Japanese Surprise Attack-Rule like in the old A&A-Pacific (2000)?

@ShadowHAwk:

It is for balance reasons, and you can always use your bid to put a carrier there.
Most bids are in the 16 range it appears so no reason not to put a carrier there if you feel it balances the game.

Although the axis do need a good head start in order to win the game, slow them down in the first 2 turns and they have basicaly lost the game.

In our games there are no bits. Countries are assigned by lot. So what you see after original set-up is was you get.

Hi Wittmann,

the 2nd US carrier would be a nice idea (to counterbalance the 21 Japanese fighters).
I think I’ll give it a try in our next game…