Posts made by The Pripet Martian

Filming begins next month on a remake of the 1976 classic, Midway. The update will reportedly star Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz.

https://www.stripes.com/news/100m-midway-movie-remake-set-to-film-on-oahu-next-month-1.542943

@Navymule:

If there are 241 IPC’s worth of territories (before NO’s), that would mean the Allies would be earning well over 200 IPC’s a turn.  No way the Axis could recover from that deficit.  That would mean another 50-70 IPC’s worth of NO’s as well.

I wouldn’t think the Axis could recover, either, but I also wouldn’t say it’s impossible. The Allies begin the game with a 175-66 IPC advantage, but seem to lose more than half the time. Why does this happen?

The short answer is that the Axis victory conditions are easier to achieve, in part because Axis income is concentrated in Germany and Japan. This allows the two main aggressors to develop strategy, purchase units needed to implement that strategy and get them to the front rapidly. Put another way, in the hands of an experienced player, the Axis have a very efficient military-industrial complex.

On the other hand, the Allied IPC advantage, at least for the first 5-6 turns, is negated by the dispersal of those IPCs to every corner of the globe…and the Allies’ powerhouse must cross two oceans to join the fight. Until the US is fully engaged in battle, the Allied IPC advantage is virtually nonexistent.

I could talk/write at length on the economics of G40, but I’ll jump to the key question: If the goal is to improve game balance by creating a new victory condition, wherein the Allies win if the number of Axis-controlled Victory Cities falls below X and the combined IPC value of Axis-controlled territories falls below Y, what are X and Y? In other words, what is the Axis’ “point of no return?”

Reading this thread, I find myself wondering how the following Allied VC change would impact the game:

The Allies win if, at the end of any round, the only Axis-controlled victory cities are Berlin, Rome and/or Tokyo and the combined value of all Axis-controlled territories is less than 33 IPCs.

This change to Allied victory conditions raises a few questions.

1. Is that enough for an undisputed Allied victory?
2. At that point in the game, what are the odds of the Axis mounting a dramatic comeback for the win?
3. Would this VC change help balance the game?
4. Would it shorten the game, or would the Axis player normally surrender before reaching that point?
5. If this VC would not shorten the game, how can it be tweaked to achieve that result?

I haven’t tried this yet, but I’m going to give it a shot and see what happens. One potential impact I can see is that often-overlooked territories (in the games I’ve played, anyway) like Okinawa and Formosa gain strategic value to both sides as the Axis approach the 33 IPC threshold.

Tom Hanks wrote the screenplay and stars in Greyhound, based on the C.S. Forester novel The Good Shepherd. Hanks plays Commander Ernest Krause, USN, whose first wartime mission is to escort a convoy across the Atlantic in early 1942. Filming is ongoing, and the release date is 22 March 2019.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyhound_(film)

@CWO:

He was definitely a lucky fellow.  There was another A-bomb test back in those days which included an exercise by US tank and mechanized infantry units to test out the concept of armoured forces exploiting a breach in a simulated enemy line created by the use of a tactical nuclear weapon.  The exercise, as I recall, is mentioned in Richard M. Ogorkiewicz’s book Technology of Tanks, and I think the armoured force in question was designated Task Force Razor.

I shudder to think of the price paid by our service personnel back then. In the same vein, another winning idea from the era was the “Davy Crockett atomic mortar” (actually a recoilless rifle):

https://armyhistory.org/the-m28m29-davy-crockett-nuclear-weapon-system/

The Davy Crockett’s chief shortcoming was its inability to hurl the nuclear projectile far enough to ensure the gun crew didn’t fall victim to their own weapon. Key takeaway from the article:

“Since the warhead also posed a threat to the crew firing it, the Army recommended that soldiers manning the Davy Crockett select firing positions in sheltered locations, such as the rear slope of a hill.  Soldiers were also encouraged to keep their heads down to protect themselves from the warhead’s detonation.”

Not mentioned in the article is a quote from a soldier who served on a Davy Crockett crew, which I heard years ago. He said the most valuable piece of equipment in that weapon system was an e-tool, used by the crew to dig foxholes in the event they had to fire the weapon.

@ABWorsham:

That same uncle got a pair of sun glasses and a front seat at the Bikini nuclear test.

He went into the Navy. My grandfather went the Army route with the US 2nd Inf Div.

My grandfather, an Army officer, witnessed a post-war atomic bomb test in New Mexico or Nevada (I can’t recall which). He was in a slit trench with a large group of officers and dignitaries. They were instructed to sit down in the trench, backs to the bomb, close their eyes and put their hands over them. Grandfather said even with his eyes closed, in the flash of the blast, he could see every bone in his hands - a perfect X-ray. After a few seconds, they were told to stand up, turn around and take a look at the mushroom cloud. My grandfather slipped and fell back into the trench. This was quite lucky, as the others stood and turned just in time to get a face-full of the radioactive dust billowing across the desert floor.

@P@nther:

@The:

Soviet sub and cruiser attack German cruiser and transport in SZ 113. Germans scramble two fighters. Soviets score two hits in the first round of combat, eliminating enemy cruiser and one fighter. Germans miss. This raises a couple of questions:

1. The remaining German combat unit (a fighter) can’t hit the Soviet sub, so is the German transport now considered “defenseless” and immediately eliminated, or do the Soviets have to kill the fighter first?
2. If the transport is immediately eliminated, can the Soviets retreat prior to a second round of combat with the remaining fighter?

So in a second round of combat a German fighter and transport are attacked by a Russian submarine and cruiser.
Autodestruction of a defenseless transport takes only place if “in a sea battle… the defender has only transports remaining and the attacker still has units capable of attacking”.

As long as there is a German fighter, the German transport won’t be autodestroyed.
However hits of the German fighter can only be assigned to the Russian cruiser.
Hits of the Russian submarine can only be assigned to the German transport.

The Russians may retreat as long as there is a defending unit “that can … fire at a valid target”.
As the German fighter may fire at the Russian cruiser, this condition is given.

If I’m reading this right, the German transport would be considered defenseless, were it not for the presence of the Russian cruiser? In other words, had the Soviets attacked with sub only and scored a hit in the first round, killing the German cruiser…the scrambled fighters couldn’t hit the sub (and vice versa), so the transport would be eliminated, AND…with only fighters remaining in the SZ, the Russian sub could not retreat?

Glad I’m sitting down, as I feel a bit lightheaded.  :-D

Soviet sub and cruiser attack German cruiser and transport in SZ 113. Germans scramble two fighters. Soviets score two hits in the first round of combat, eliminating enemy cruiser and one fighter. Germans miss. This raises a couple of questions:

1. The remaining German combat unit (a fighter) can’t hit the Soviet sub, so is the German transport now considered “defenseless” and immediately eliminated, or do the Soviets have to kill the fighter first?
2. If the transport is immediately eliminated, can the Soviets retreat prior to a second round of combat with the remaining fighter?

@jim010:

Other than the Gloster, nothing I am looking for. And the Gloster I think is too big at over 2cm long?

Ebard’s Meteors are 2.3cm long and have a wingspan of 2.0cm. They’re slightly longer (and have a slightly shorter wingspan) than the G40 OOB Spitfires, but smaller than the Mosquitoes. If you’re playing G40, I think you’ll find them just right.

https://www.shapeways.com/product/PKLPZHZ6N/gloster-meteor-1-600-x6?optionId=65534017

Check out Ebard on shapeways.com - not sure about everything you’re looking for, but I bought some of his Gloster Meteors, and they’re fantastic.

@Charles:

All this talk about Star Wars has piqued my interest.  Would Solo be a good choice for me to watch even if its my first impression of the series?  I know that the movies are all connected yet not chronological or necessary to watch in order, but it this a good one for someone new to Star Wars?

The traditionalist in me says you should start with the original movie (Episode IV - A New Hope), but if you’re new to Star Wars, Solo is far from the worst choice. I found it much more entertaining than The Last Jedi or Episodes I-III.

We’ve wrestled with the “cruiser or destroyer?” issue, too. Looking for the squared-off stern is a great idea. Another way we dealt with the issue was to organize our storage trays for each power in exactly the same way, so players quickly learn which units are in each compartment, no matter which powers you’re controlling.

In particular, I organized ships as follows: (alphabetical order, top to bottom and left to right) Aircraft Carriers and Battleships in the first compartment, followed by Cruisers, Destroyers, Subs and Transports in separate compartments. Players know cruisers will always be in the compartment right below the carriers and battleships, while destroyers are in the compartment at the top of the second column, and so on.

I second CWO Marc’s “training game” idea. The combination of training games and post-game “after-action reviews,” in which everything from unit purchases to moves was discussed, is how I taught my wife to play G40.

Step one in getting new players up to speed - and this is critical - is to make sure they read the rule book themselves, rather than you trying to explain the game on the fly. I learned this the hard way, after my wife became frustrated by my repeated “you can’t do that” interjections, followed by an explanation of the rule she was violating.

In particular, my wife benefited enormously from the after-action reviews, as they were quite thought-provoking and always left her inspired to try new strategies (and thus, looking forward to playing again). As we played, I made brief notes. After the game, I’d refer to those notes to prompt questions, such as, “On UK4, you were obviously building your Normandy invasion force. Why did you buy two submarines?” and so on. A respectful back-and-forth on the merits of purchasing two subs vs. four infantry helped my wife develop her A&A strategic thinking and planning skills. As a result, her frustration with G40 has been largely reduced to one we all share: good strategies thwarted by unlucky dice.

A final note: We made our own setup charts for each power. On the back of each chart, we printed that power’s National Objectives. I still find it beneficial for myself, not to mention newer players, to go around the table before each game and have players read their NO’s aloud. Doing so gets everyone thinking about achieving their own objectives, as well as preventing the enemy from achieving theirs, allowing the seeds of strategy to germinate before a single move is made.

Thanks for all the responses, folks - exactly what I needed to hear.

I recently ordered some game pieces from Shapeways. Since the process for creating these differs from your typical moulded plastic pieces, I’m wondering if it’s still necessary to wash them with warm, soapy water before painting. Do I need to treat them differently in any way, before or during the painting process?

I don’t know about every one of the Flying Tigers, but Gregory “Pappy” Boyington resigned his Marine Corps commission to join the AVG. According to his autobiography, he was promised (by whom, I can’t recall) that his USMC commission would be reinstated if/when the US entered the war. After Pearl Harbor, the AVG became part of the US Army Air Force and most Flying Tigers received Army commissions. Boyington refused, insisting on returning to the Marine Corps, and went back to the US until the matter was resolved to his satisfaction.

I’ve seen several of the “Why We Fight” series, but not the one you mentioned. I’ll check that out.

I just started watching “Five Came Back,” a Netflix documentary mini-series about five major Hollywood directors (including Frank Capra) who joined the war effort. Very good so far. One interesting nugget from episode one: In 1939, Capra wanted to make a George Washington biopic. His studio head shot it down, saying the timing was wrong for a movie in which the British were the villains. Capra made “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” instead.

Great story - thanks for posting the link. The Bismarck article raises another fascinating hypothetical question: What if Roosevelt’s efforts to circumvent the Neutrality Act resulted in his impeachment? Would the likely changes in American foreign policy have been enough to convince the Japanese to call off the Pearl Harbor attack? Without Pearl Harbor, when does the US go to war?

It’s a bit too early in the day for whisky and a philosophical discussion, but I’m filing this topic away for later.  :-D

@CWO:

Very interesting article – thanks for posting the link.

About the “powers not at war” thing: if I’m not mistaken, that wasn’t an element of the Lend-Lease Act, it was an element of the Neutrality Acts (which were, in essence, superseded by the Lend-Lease Act).  Lend-Lease was intended to benefit countries which were “at war with aggressor nations”, if I remember correctly the phrase Roosevelt used in his “arsenal of democracy” speech, so by definition a power had to be at war (and specifically to have been the victim of aggression, which translated roughly into “having been attacked by Hitler”) to be eligible for Lend-Lease.

In late September 1939, by the way, the US found a clever way to amend the Neutrality Act that technically kept the US neutral but in practice favoured the Allied powers (which at the time basically meant the British and the French).  It allowed powers at war to buy implements of war from the US, as long as they transported the stuff using their own ships and paid immediately in cash.  This favoured the British and the French, and for all practical purposes excluded Germany, because the Royal Navy quickly managed to sweep most German shipping off the face of the Atlantic after WWII broke out.

The more I learn about the “technical”/situational status of US neutrality, the more I am simply fascinated. The reality was in no way black and white (as we were taught in school), but very much shades of gray.

As for the 1939 amendment to the Neutrality Act…Thanks for including that info. It sheds light on the phone conversation between Churchill and FDR portrayed in Darkest Hour (I won’t detail it here, so as to avoid a ‘spoiler’ for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie. If you haven’t seen it, though, you really should).

Interesting read here, courtesy of the Hampton Roads Naval Museum:

http://hamptonroadsnavalmuseum.blogspot.com/2018/05/new-princes-namesake-naval-hero-in.html?m=1

I didn’t know that the Lend-Lease Act included a provision for the repair of Allied ships, nor did I know that six battle-damaged British warships were repaired at American shipyards in 1941. It seems President Roosevelt skipped over the “Powers Not At War” section of the rules.  :wink: