Topics created by TheAandAClassicDude

@Valladares Noted! Will change ASAP

@Imperious-Leader said in Amerika V2?:

It would be the SAME game. Thats the problem. I got all seasons of MITHC and love the scenes of the Germans plotting Japans demise. I hate the parts with the women partisan and the running around/lovey- dovey.

This might interest you, IL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E0uVVqCRgw&t=108s

Yes that looks good. I’m using the old Battleships from HBG for the Coastal Defence Ships. Nevada class for Allies ($3.45). Schleswig Holstein for Germany and Italy ($2.45). Fuso Early War Battleship for Japan ($3.45)

It looks highly unlikely that you’re going to post spam :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: so please share!

@Argothair:

I’m not really clear on how your rules would work – someone is rolling a die to get bonus cash? Who? When? How much cash? Do the Republican / Nationalist sides of the civil war have any starting forces, or are they entirely donated by the patrons? Does Spain always end the civil war with an army of exactly 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk no matter how stalemated or one-sided the civil war was? Given that control of Spain is apparently worth something like 19 IPCs in units plus 3 IPCs per turn in income, plus control of a tactically useful forward base, is there any reason why each side wouldn’t donate the maximum allowable amount?

All of that said, 1939 scenarios are tricky because they make it really hard for the Axis to win – the general consensus among historian types is that the Allies could have won the war quickly, easily, and decisively if England and France and Poland (let alone Russia!) had all made a coordinated attack on Germany before Germany had a chance to plunder half of Europe. So you need some mechanics that either stop the Allies from attacking or stop them from coordinating their attacks; otherwise the Axis get blown away. You also need to find a way to nerf the American economy so that the Americans don’t have 4 years of massive spending to prepare for a 1943 invasion, or the endgame also becomes an easy Allied victory.

I think the overall tendency of introducing the Spanish Civil War is to further advantage the Allies, because it provides yet another potential beachhead that the Germans need to defend. Let’s say the Allies invest nothing in Spain, the Axis contribute about 3 infantry, and so now the Axis are basically guaranteed to win the Spanish Civil War and will wind up with 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk plus an income boost of 3 IPCs per turn. Well, the 1 art + 1 tnk gets used up real fast, and then it’s not obvious that 3 IPC per turn is enough to pay for an effective garrison of an additional high-value territory near Berlin/Rome. If the Soviets get control of Spain and Italy or whoever has to waste resources invading it, well, that’s that much worse for the Axis.

None of this is to say that you can’t or shouldn’t have a Spanish Civil War in your 1939 scenario, just that you have to be careful about it. Be careful not to advantage the Allies too much, is my advice.

“Someone is rolling a die to get bonus cash? Who? When? How much cash?” Yes, in a 2 player game the Axis player and Allies player rolls a die. In games exceeding 2 players, the Italy Player and the Russian Player roll the die for their respective side. Neither side has starting forces and their units can only be received through the die roll and donations. The amount of cash earned is the number on the die.

“Does Spain always end the civil war with an army of exactly 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk no matter how stalemated or one-sided the civil war was?” Yes Spain always begins with that much but the Iberian peninsula itself has been split up into multiple territories.

“Given that control of Spain is apparently worth something like 19 IPCs in units plus 3 IPCs per turn in income, plus control of a tactically useful forward base, is there any reason why each side wouldn’t donate the maximum allowable amount?” Yes, the lack of IPCs to do so in the first turn or finding a better use for the IPCs.

Now I understand 1939 is hard for the Axis to win, which is why I’ve taken liberties here and there and added rules (Such as politics, neutrality, and ways to sap money from the Allies). I believe had I introduced this with my entire 1939 scenario, a lot of your question would have been cleared up. Also going back to liberties and realism please reread the first sentence I’ve added as a disclaimer “This isn’t realistic”. I see Axis and Allies as more of a game with history theme rather than an accurate history simulator. This isn’t to say that I’m not grateful for your feedback (Which I am) but I would like you know 2 things

1: I prioritize fairness and fun over realism

2: I did not explain everything and things that would balance your suggested issues.

If you would like I could begin a thread explaining my whole game and then later on we could revisit this and see my idea with a new Point of View.

I have to disagree.  Imagine Japan building a micro in western China or the Novosibirsk area.  That would allow a quick overrun of the unprotected Soviet territoriies while the Russians are cornered in Moscow.  It tales a fast unit four turns to get from the Chinese coast (where factories can be built) to Moscow, while a micro could bring troops to the front immediately.

Even a micro in the Shan State or Yunnan could be detrimental to India simply because of the added range. Though a micro is not as economical as a minor, it gives Japan a privilege it rarely ever gets early on: building inland.

Thanks GHG for clearing it all up. It seems he’s right. To answer the question of where I live, well, I’d rather not.

I voted indifferent because I’m still holding out hope that:

The undesirable zombies can be house ruled out.

The map is a good medium sized map (a la Revised/42SE).

The “1939 Scenario” that the WOTC rep mentioned in his interview with A&A.org a few months back is fresh/worth playing.

I’m still willing to hold out hope because the only objectively terrible A&A games are 1941 and Spring 42, the latter of which is only terrible because the small map made the game unplayable.

This sounds incredibly interesting to me. I am all about flexibility in games as it keeps you interested in them. That is what I am attempting with my Global variant map and house rules with it. Except I am only doing WWII as it is what I have available, and due to limited funds and limited experience I am not willing to undertake something like this on my own… yet. But this sounds incredibly interesting. If there is anything I can do to help out let me know. Assuming this goes beyond an idea

@Argothair:

Hey ClassicDude,

We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

Cheers,
Argo

Yes I think that this is something we can agree on. However I am still willing to test out your ideas.

Intriguing. I didn’t realize someone had gotten as far as making at least a functional map and XML that could be played using a decent amount of edits. There is always a chance that TripleA would support 1914 but it would require a developer to make a number of engine enhancements to support the many ‘interesting’ rules that added.

@TheAandAClassicDude:

If so, what kinds of videos?

I’m sort of new here and I don’t know what kind of videos you normally do. I assume that they’re A&A related, but that’s all I know. So, um, what kind of videos would you be willing to do?

-Midnight_Reaper

For purely defensive purposes, buying infantry cannot be beat. When you can swap in an offensive piece (artillery or tank) without decreasing the number of units you’re putting on the board, this is well-advised. The relative cost of units and their defending capability seems to be balanced such that quantity is quality.

For example, Russia starts the '41 version with 30 IPC. For that money you can buy 10 inf OR 8 inf and a tank, etc, etc… OR 3 fighters. If you benchmark every 30IPC purchasing combination against an attacking force of 4inf and 5 tanks (nearly a 50/50 battle with about a 2% chance of mutually assured destruction if you purchased 10 inf), the results are telling:

10 inf - 49% chance of winning [2 * 10 = 20 hit points or 20/6 = 3.3 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 38% chance of winning [2 * 8 + 1 *3 = 19 hit points or 19/6 = 3.2 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter - 16% chance of winning [5 * 2 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 4 = 17 or 17/6 = 2.8 average hits]
.
.
.
3 fighters - 0.02% chance of winning [3 * 4 = 12 points or 12/6 = 2 average hits]

No combination of possible purchases perform better than 10 inf in this scenario.

However, when playing against a German Goering that likes to over-extend poorly defended fighters or bombers to gain a couple of IPCs, it’s nice to have the offensive capability to wipe them off the board. I have found this is best accomplished by pushing infantry forward (protecting your offensive pieces from overwhelming counter-attack) and keeping a mix of infantry, artillery and tanks within striking distance of the front line.

For offensive purposes, the best mix of units for the same 30 IPCs, baselined to a 50/50 battle of your 10 infantry against a defending 6inf + 1 artillery (approximately 1% chance of a draw):

10 inf - 50% [10 * 1 = 10 points or 10/6 = 1.7 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 60% [8 * 1 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
6 inf, 3 art - 81% [3 * 1 + (3 + 3) * 2 = 15 points or 15/6 = 2.5 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr - 42% [5 * 1 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
.
.
.
3 ftr - 0% [3 * 3 = 9 points or 9/6 = 1.5 average hits]

For purely offensive considerations, the optimum combination of units in this scenario is 6 inf and 3 art at 81% chance of victory with 4 inf, 2 art and 2 tanks in close second at 80%. No combination of purchases which include a fighter score better than 53% (4 inf, 2 art and 1 fighter happens to be the specific combination in this case). Again, there appears to be a quality in quantity that supersedes just quality. It may go without stating, but if attacking a territory with an AA gun, the numbers will be even worse for the fighter purchases.

For the two scenarios above, the most balanced purchase (averaging the %won for each purchase in its offensive capacity and defensive capacity) is 7 inf, 1 art and 1 tank. This particular purchase is the second best defensive purchase (next to 10 inf) and only 4% less potent than the best offensive purchase (6 inf and 3 art).

I’m not against fighters or bombers, they certainly have their place I just haven’t found justification for purchasing them when playing as Russia (or Germany for that matter) - especially in the early rounds.

Similar conclusion are drawn with respect to naval units - more cost-effective units (subs and especially destroyers) are typically better than fewer high-powered units (battleships and especially cruisers).

Excepting special circumstances (such as no time to get infantry to a developing hot-spot on the map or needing to sandbag funds for a massive naval build against enemies squatting in your sea-zone) a good rule of thumb seems to be to maximize the number of attack/defend points your are bringing to the board, first, and spread over as many units as possible, second.

The most effective allied strategy is to KGF.  For this main reason, Germany should fatten up and not lose the war by ensuring many infantry as part of their buys.  Japan will be unstoppable by round 5 (at the latest) since There is no good way to slow Japan enough that really makes a difference.  Japan can even fly a ftr or two to Europe to help keep the allies off Fortress Europe.

@TheAandAClassicDude:

Germany: The Waffen SS: Costs 4 IPCs. Attacks and Defends on 2 or less. Moves 1 (Use Germany�s Infantry pieces from Axis and Allies Classic to represent them.)

Could we leave out the Nazi unit? The last thing I want are people falsely thinking this is game and website is some kind of alt right meeting place.

Besides, Germany doesn’t need any HRs help when they can churn out 5 IPC tanks.

Right. The ordinance they dropped was substantial by the standards of those days, but the effect was to reduce the morale of the populations: effect was to reduce IPC by effecting the will of the people to continue the fight.

So allow them SBR capability.

Additionally, they were good fighters in the air and air units could not even reach them till latter in the war if they conducted high altitude attacks. Basically their biplanes were very slow at climbing and had a limited ceiling.

It depends on what “work” means – in other words, on whether players would consider a Kursk scenario appealing.  Conceptually, Kursk would be similar to A&A D-Day (minus the water) in the sense that the battle was fundamentally a frontal assault on a heavily-defended static position, and similar to A&A Battle of the Bulge in the sense that it would involve ground forces driving into enemy lines, but different from both games in the sense that from the German point of view Kursk was a pincer movement aimed at pinching off a salient, and that from the Russian point of view it was a two-stage offensive-defensive battle.  Personally I think it has good potential to make an interesting game, if it’s designed properly.

I personally think there should be equal tech for the same unit that gives different units in the same class.

Example infantry tech but each tech is different for each nations.

USSR would be conscripts.
Germany would be SS.
UK would be Homeland infantry.
France would be Resistance.
Italy would be Frogmen.
Japan would be “Koreans”
US would be Marines
ANZAC would be conscripts
China would be suicide bombers.

And then work around that. Or what you could do is set the tech upgrades to actual units each nation has that Axis and Allies don’t have set up. Like China being able to buy tanks as an example.

Technology sounds very intriguing! Do you think using pieces from HBG’s “Amerika” would be a good idea for that?

@TheAandAClassicDude:

As someone who recently opened a YouTube channel, I want to improve on my speaking skills. Whenever I watch one of YG or GHG’s videos for example, they’re able to speak and not stutter.  They also don’t sound like a robot like I do. Does anyone have any tips?

Go practice singing in a choir to fix your voice, parents and mirrors etc. are bad advice, if your serious about it do it properly, they’ll have you confident and sound like an angel in no time