Posts made by The Pripet Martian

@weddingsinger said in Maximizing Cruiser Value?:

Which is more useful depends on what you want it for, I suppose.

The battleship’s ability to get healed is very useful when you’re the potential defender near your naval bases (Japan garrisoning Philippines, for example)

If you only have 20 IPC to spend on your navy, I think DD+CA vs. BB is a very close call. As you said, the battleship’s no-cost repair (versus a minimum of 8 IPC to replace a DD) is a significant advantage. However, DD+CA offers a slightly greater chance of scoring one hit in the first round of combat and a .17 chance of two hits, not to mention an anti-sub capability the BB lacks.

For me, I think it comes down to this: If the enemy has subs, go with CA+DD. If no subs, distance from a friendly port vs. distance from my nearest IC will guide my decision.

Either I’m not understanding these responses, or I didn’t clearly articulate my original question (or both, which is most likely). Let me try again:

Sticking strictly to OOB 2nd Ed. Global rules (no changes to unit cost or capabilities), does the purchase of one destroyer and one cruiser (assuming you plan to move and fight them as a pair, in effect making them a single unit) offer better value than one battleship?

Many players seem to have a problem with the cruiser, with most considering it overpriced. I know there’s been quite a bit of tinkering with that unit over in the House Rules section, from lowering the cost to adding anti-aircraft ability, and so on. Is it possible, though, that we’re simply not maximizing the value of cruisers within the OOB rules?

As I see it, the cruiser is overpriced if purchased and used in combat alone. When paired with a destroyer, however, it’s value increases considerably. Consider this:

Cruiser + Destroyer = Cost: 20 Attack/Defense Value: 5 Hits to kill: 2
Battleship = Cost: 20 Attack/Defense Value: 4 Hits to kill: 2

I know the BB still has an advantage, in that one hit doesn’t change the A/D value and it can be repaired. On the other hand, the CA+DD combo has a slightly greater chance of scoring one hit (and can potentially score two hits) per combat round.

With all the above in mind, if you’re buying units in anticipation of naval combat (as opposed to naval combat + amphibious assault), wouldn’t the CA+DD combo offer slightly better value than one BB?

@The-Lone-Wolf Those are the Karimata Islands. Value: .25 IPC (representing the birds nests harvested there for birds nest soup). Congrats on your cool custom map! ;)

Seriously, though…maybe use some liquid paper, let it dry, then use a colored pencil to try to blend it with the ocean?

Thanks for the responses. I have to agree that the situation with the Dutch vis-a-vis Japan is most comparable to that of the French. I’ll proceed accordingly.

I’m working on some House Rules and a question has arisen. I won’t bore anyone with the details, so this may seem a bit odd. Here’s the question:

The rules clearly state that a Japanese attack on the Dutch East Indies is regarded as an act of war by the UK and ANZAC. What about a Japanese attack on either UK or ANZAC without a corresponding attack on DEI? Would the Netherlands consider that an act of war, or would their position be akin to “pro-Allies neutral?”

If you see the headline of the article linked below and immediately wonder why they stuck an “s” on the end of Sir Arthur’s nickname, you might be a WWII junkie:

https://winnipegsun.com/sports/football/bombers-harris-earns-star-of-the-week

11 JUN 1944: My uncle, Bud Piper, a combat engineer in the U.S. Army, began his second day in France. Like yesterday and tomorrow, he would spend it on his hands and knees, removing mines from Omaha Beach. By the end of the month, 1/3 of his unit would be killed or wounded by mines, booby traps, snipers or German artillery.

@CrazyIvan An individual transport can only offload into a single territory per turn. If you brought two transports, however, one can offload into Norway while the other offloads into Western Germany. If TripleA won’t allow that, it’s a glitch.

Netflix has quite a few films from WWII available for streaming: Prelude to War, The Battle of Russia, Tunisian Victory, Thunderbolt, Report from the Aleutians, The Battle of Midway, San Pietro and more. They also have the entire World War II in Colour series.

Submarines certainly have both offensive and defensive (as hit soakers) value, but strategic bombers offer greater flexibility due to their movement and attack values.

If, for example, your opponent buys a bunch of subs (for use as hit soakers) in anticipation of an attack by your fleet, you can hit them with aircraft only and take the subs out of the equation.

Even if your opponent doesn’t go that route, well-placed bombers can be used for strategic bombing raids which enable you to out-spend your opponent on naval purchases and break the “stalemate at sea” in a few turns. On the other hand, if your opponent fails to buy enough destroyers, subs are a more cost-effective way to achieve the same result.

In my opinion, it comes down to this: If your opponent has few destroyers, buy subs. If he has many destroyers and/or subs, buy bombers.

@Black_Elk I think a Zero Round purchase in G40 offers a myriad of options for most powers. Here are just a few thoughts that come to mind:

• USSR stacks Amur (a 12 INF buy? 6 Armor? A combo?) and sweeps through Manchuria and Korea unless the Japanese fortify both.

• USA stacks the Philippines, effectively blocking Japan’s path to the Money Islands.

• Japan buys transports. If USA doesn’t fortify the Philippines, they go south. If the Money Islands are blocked, A major move to Alaska and British Columbia isn’t out of the question.

• As I stated previously, a German aircraft carrier in SZ 97 could prevent Taranto. Saving the Italian fleet changes the dynamic in the Med fairly dramatically.

• Another German option: 5 more U-boats in the Atlantic could really ruin England’s day.

That’s really just the tip of the iceberg. I’m sure there are many other great ideas out there.

@Imperious-Leader said in HR skip movement phases in first round:

If you engage such a round and the purchases were secret, Germany could do a G2 Sealion

That’s certainly a possibility, as long as France still falls in the first round…which might not be automatic, especially if the Brits choose to reinforce Paris.

I see so many possibilities. This really could be a lot of fun. I think I’ll have to try it.

I can’t speak to any game other than G40, but I’m not convinced a Zero Round of purchases would have any effect on balance, since Axis and Allies alike can spend their full compliment of IPC. That said, I really like this HR, but with a twist:

All powers make their purchases and determine new unit placement in secret, then reveal them simultaneously.

If you take it a step further and eliminate standard new unit placement restrictions, you can open the door to potentially game-changing scenarios, such as a German aircraft carrier in the Med to protect the Regia Marina from Taranto, an American “Fortress Philippines,” etc. This could be a lot of fun, and has the potential to ruin the standard G1 and J1 openings while forcing the development of new strategies on the fly.

I’ve never played HBG’s Global game, so I have no idea how that game functions from 1936-40. As far as doing it with A&A, though…a few thoughts come to mind:

The Income Issue:

On this forum, we often refer to it as “income” or “money,” but it’s critical to your aims to bear in mind the correct term. IPCs represent industrial production geared toward the war effort. As such, nations not at war should only receive a fraction of their allotted IPCs. To illustrate my point: In the late 1930s, the US was still climbing out of the Great Depression and wasn’t focused on rearming for the coming conflict. In fact, as late as June 1939, the US Army was smaller than that of Portugal. The UK was also slow to rearm, as many Brits felt that doing so would merely serve to provoke Hitler.

Down the Rabbit Hole

The IPC issue could be addressed in a 1936 scenario by awarding powers not at war a percentage of their total IPCs each turn. This percentage would increase with each act of Axis aggression, whether an attack (such as Japan against China or Italy against Ethiopia), an “annexation” of a neutral territory (Germany into Austria) or rearming in violation of international treaties.

If you really want to get into this time period, I think you have to work in an element of diplomacy, as well. The Anschluss and Sudeten Crisis each presented an international crisis, pushing Germany to the brink of war with the UK and France. In both instances, German generals feared the outbreak of hostilities with their former foes, as the German army wasn’t yet ready for large-scale conflict.

For gaming purposes, as the Axis powers expand, the likelihood of world war should increase. Every act of Axis aggression should involve an element of risk, to keep them from running amok in the turns covering 1936-39.

A final thought (and I’m sure this is covered in HBG’s Global 1936 game): In any scenario covering this time period, the French should be a major player. Their military budget was higher than most Allied nations after WWI and they began a major rearmament program in 1936.

All in all, a 1936 A&A scenario could be a fun project. Good luck!

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “trading territories.” Assuming, however, you’re talking about capturing a 1 IPC territory for the sole purpose of collecting that IPC while knowing your opponent will recapture that territory on his turn, I’d say that’s almost never a worthwhile trade.

From a purely economic standpoint, you’re sacrificing a 3 IPC infantry unit (at a minimum) to gain 1 IPC. Say your opponent has 1 INF in that territory, which you kill. You’ve just cost him 3 IPCs. On his turn, he counterattacks, killing your INF (thus costing you 3 IPC) and regaining that 1 IPC territory. In effect, both sides have lost 2 IPC, with no change in the status quo. With that in mind, you should ask yourself if there’s a better use for your infantry unit.

There are times when the territory in question has a strategic value much greater than the IPC value, and such a “trade” is in your best interests. In those cases, it’s simply a matter of calculating the number of hits you expect your opponent to get in the battle and sending in one more infantry unit than the enemy can be expected to kill. For example, 3 defending INF can be expected to get one hit per combat round. If you send in enough planes to ensure you’ll kill all 3 enemy INF, you only need to send 2 INF in to secure the territory.

In a recent live G40 game, I (as the US) attacked the Japanese fleet in SZ 6 with the following:
2 FTR, 2 TAC, 10 STR

Rolled this in the first round:
FTR = 1 hit
TAC = 0 hits
STR = 0 hits

Pro Tip: After you soak the dice in lighter fluid, scrub your hands thoroughly with soap before striking the match. :skull_and_crossbones: :skull_and_crossbones: :skull_and_crossbones:

As far as I can tell, the rules don’t address this situation directly. Since no destroyers are present, however, it would seem that both sides are allowed a surprise strike…which essentially means that sub vs. sub would be conducted in the same manner as normal (non-sub-related) combat.

Based on my reading of the Defenseless Transports rule, ANZAC transports must retreat or be destroyed by the Japanese sub. (Edit: And yes, the ANZAC fighter is destroyed.)

Now hear this! Now hear this! I’m looking for experienced G40 players in the Dallas area for a live playtest of The Pripet Martian’s Global Enhanced Rules System.

GERS (because who doesn’t love a good acronym?) is designed to address the two chief complaints of G40 fans: Game (im)balance and a desire for more IPCs. These issues are handled with only minor changes to the G40.2 OOB rules, plus several exciting, intriguing and strategy-altering rule additions. Highlights include:

• Injecting more IPCs into the game through an action-driven War Bonds system.

• R&D is now targeted and top secret. Decide which tech you want and put your best people to work on it. Use espionage to steal enemy research and beat them to the punch!

• New units: Coastal Fortifications, Paratroops (rule change from OOB), Engineers, Marines, Gurkhas and Commerce Raiders.

I’ll be out of town 5-9 FEB, so I’d like to shoot for a mid- to late-February playtest. Weekends are preferable, but I can also do it during the week, if that works best for everyone. I’d like to finalize a group as soon as possible, so everyone has time to familiarize themselves with GERS before playing. Reply to this message if interested.

–PM