Posts made by Uberlager

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3, version: 2.6

Game History

Round :1

Combat Move - British
            Giving bonus movement to units
            1 transport moved from 109 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from United Kingdom to 110 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from 110 Sea Zone to Holland Belgium
                  British take Holland Belgium from Germans
            1 tactical_bomber moved from 98 Sea Zone to 96 Sea Zone
            1 fighter moved from Malta to 96 Sea Zone

Combat - British
            Battle in 96 Sea Zone
                British attack with 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber
                Italians defend with 1 destroyer and 1 transport
                British win with 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 15
                Casualties for Italians: 1 destroyer and 1 transport
                British win with 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 15
                Casualties for Italians: 1 destroyer and 1 transport
            Recording Battle Statistics

Non Combat Move - British
            1 infantry moved from Anglo Egyptian Sudan to Egypt
            1 destroyer moved from 109 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone
            1 fighter moved from Gibraltar to 110 Sea Zone
            1 armour moved from Alexandria to Egypt
            1 artillery moved from Alexandria to Egypt
            1 infantry moved from Alexandria to Egypt
            1 tactical_bomber moved from 96 Sea Zone to Egypt
            1 fighter moved from 96 Sea Zone to Egypt
            1 battleship moved from 37 Sea Zone to 39 Sea Zone
            3 infantry moved from Malaya to Shan State
            2 infantry moved from Burma to Yunnan
            1 fighter moved from Burma to Yunnan
            1 fighter moved from India to Yunnan
            1 tactical_bomber moved from India to Yunnan
            6 infantry moved from India to Burma
            1 artillery moved from India to Burma
            3 aaGuns moved from India to Burma
            1 infantry moved from West India to India
            1 infantry moved from Ontario to Quebec
            1 artillery moved from Ontario to Quebec
            2 infantry moved from Union of South Africa to Rhodesia
            1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer and 1 transport moved from 98 Sea Zone to 81 Sea Zone
            1 destroyer moved from 71 Sea Zone to 81 Sea Zone

Place Units - British
            1 carrier placed in 110 Sea Zone
            1 fighter placed in 110 Sea Zone

Turn Complete - British
            British collect 29 PUs (2 lost to blockades); end with 31 PUs total
            Objective British 1 Original: British met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 36 PUs

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3, version: 2.6

Game History

Round :1

Purchase Units - Chinese
            Trigger Chinese Loses Burma Road: Chinese has their production frontier changed to: games.strategy.engine.data.ProductionFrontier called productionChinese_Burma_Road_Closed
            Chinese buy 4 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

Combat Move - Chinese
            1 fighter and 6 infantry moved from Szechwan to Yunnan
            2 infantry moved from Kweichow to Yunnan

Combat - Chinese
            Battle in Yunnan
                Chinese attack with 1 fighter and 8 infantry
                Japanese defend with 1 artillery and 2 infantry
                Chinese win, taking Yunnan from Japanese with 1 fighter and 8 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 10
                Casualties for Japanese: 1 artillery and 2 infantry
                Chinese win with 1 fighter and 8 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 10
                Casualties for Japanese: 1 artillery and 2 infantry
            Recording Battle Statistics

Non Combat Move - Chinese
            2 infantry moved from Suiyuyan to Shensi
            1 fighter moved from Yunnan to Szechwan
            1 infantry moved from Shensi to Szechwan

Place Units - Chinese
            4 infantry placed in Yunnan

Turn Complete - Chinese
            Chinese collect 9 PUs; end with 9 PUs total
            Objective Chinese 1 Burma Road: Chinese met a national objective for an additional 6 PUs; end with 15 PUs

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3, version: 2.6

Game History

Round :1

Purchase Units - Americans
            Americans buy 1 artillery, 1 battleship, 2 infantry and 3 transports; Remaining resources: 1 PUs;

Combat Move - Americans
            Giving bonus movement to units

Non Combat Move - Americans
            1 infantry moved from Central United States to Eastern United States
            1 armour moved from Central United States to Eastern United States
            3 mech_infantrys moved from Central United States to Eastern United States
            1 bomber moved from Central United States to Eastern United States
            2 fighters moved from Hawaiian Islands to Western United States
            1 fighter moved from Western United States to Eastern United States
            1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine and 1 transport moved from 26 Sea Zone to 10 Sea Zone
            1 fighter moved from Philippines to Guam
            1 destroyer and 1 submarine moved from 35 Sea Zone to 54 Sea Zone

Place Units - Americans
            1 transport placed in 10 Sea Zone
            1 artillery and 1 infantry placed in Western United States
            1 infantry placed in Central United States
            1 battleship and 2 transports placed in 101 Sea Zone

Turn Complete - Americans
            Americans collect 52 PUs; end with 53 PUs total

Scramble Scotland fighter.

Prefer TripleA, alpha 3.9.  Keep in mind I am not an experienced player.

I love it when somebody says they’ll play, but then you never hear from them again… :roll:

Rolling for sides:

1 = miamiumike Axis, Uberlager Allies
2 = miamiumike Allies, Uberlager Axis

Rolling 1d2:
(1)

I’m game if you are still looking (and you don’t mind a game taking a while).  TripleA is OK with me.  I would prefer OOB since this is my first global game.  We can roll to assign sides to make it interesting.

I only saw the first 3 on the list, so I can really only comment on them.  I must say I am very surprised about the reaction to TRL.  It tries to be very accurate (notice the yellowish hand grenades?), tells a very compelling story, and offers up rich characters.  Every time somebody posted that it was ‘boring’, I just shook my head. :roll: I guess some people with their short attention spans need explosions to keep them focused.  I guess it is no surprise, then, when they said that PH was ‘entertaining’. Piece of typical Hollywood garbage.

IB was a typical Tarantino flick, which is to say entertaining and fun.  Of course historical accuracy was not the point.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Still, isn’t industrial capacity connected to the resources available?

Yes, to some degree, but there are too many other factors that contribute to a territory’s industrial capacity than just raw natural resources (education, topography, and ease of transportation to name a few).  If they were directly connected, Alaska should be one of the world’s greatest industrial centers.  We all know that’s not the case.

Wouldn’t infantry still require a degree of industrial production since they use a multitude of small arms, equipment, etc?  Anyway, manpower points are beyond what I was trying to reconcile, which is the forced link between natural resources and industrial production.

I envisioned a numbering system like 1/4, 3/8, 5/2, etc. where the first number is the income you collect for controlling the territory and the second number for the industrial production capable in that territory.  For instance, both E. Indies and Borneo could be 4/1, since the Japanese player should gain significant wealth from expansion but not be able to set up production there.  That would make things a bit more realistic.  Also, Australia is currently treated as just another island in the south Pacific which shouldn’t be the case.  Perhaps values of 2/5 or something like that would reflect its potential for production.  Japan itself should be a 4/8 or maybe 4/10 or something similar since it doesn’t have significant natural resources - hence the reason for its expansion in WWII to begin with.

I’m not sure if this has been thought of already, but I thought of a way to make A&A a bit more realistic.  Instead of having one IPC value for a territory - which counts for its natural resources AND its industrial capacity should an IC be placed there - why not split them up?  One value for the income you collect for controlling the territory (natural resources) and another value for the units you can place there (industrial capacity).  It never made sense that one always came with the other.  Such as both the East Indies and Borneo in AA50 have values of 4, and the Japanese player will sometime build an IC in E. Indies because of this.  What historical sense does that make?  Combined, E. Indies and Borneo have the same production power of Japan.  I know that Japan needs to gain income from its expansion for the game to be playable, but the system for doing so currently just doesn’t work, IMO.

Thoughts?

The only thing that I took issue with regarding Episodes I, II, and III is that they were crappy movies not in keeping with the feel of IV, V, and VI.

The 1941 version has four territories in Africa that contain units: a German-controlled Algeria, an Italian-controlled Libya (with German units as well as Italian units), and British-controlled Egypt and South Africa. The South African troops are too far from the action to be useful, though.  IMO, the balance of power in Africa is balanced quite well, so adding any Axis units close to Egypt would tip the balance to the Axis.  Africa is too important to the Axis to allow them having a leg-up in its control.

Heh, I work at Wichita State… :wink:

I’m not into fishing, so I will not be a big help there.  There seems to be some good info here if you haven’t looked into it yet.

I don’t have anything that I know of going on that weekend yet, but that can change in a hurry.  I’ll try to drop you a PM closer to that time and let you know for sure.

I’m in Wichita.  Summer is usually pretty hectic for me, so I may not be available, depending on when you are here.  PM me the details…

I think using both is the ticket.  Assuming that both you and the medical student are new to the area, it would be beneficial to seek the advice of the local witch doctor.  Why?  Witch doctors will more than likely have knowledge of local medicinal plants.  This, of course, assumes the med student has no medication or implements on his/her person at the time.  He/she would definitely be useful to have on hand for objectivity and modern knowledge so that the, say, inflamed appendix would be diagnosed as such instead of the witch doctor claiming you have evil spirits or the like in your belly.  But he might know of a local plant with antibiotic properties.

Absolutely.  A person that is given some liberties regarding how they spend their time at work will usually perform better in the long run than somebody that is forced to “work” for the duration.  Granted, this is the case for salaried professionals more so than for menial, minimum wage hourly jobs where the worker is much more replaceable.  A professional that you need to put significant resources into to make them an important, contributing member of the organization should be allowed some freedom in this regard.  If their job is high-stress, they will just get burned out quicker if the stress isn’t relived in some manner.

It depends what you consider ‘effective’.  If effective means higher chance of success, then the first option is better.  If it means lower losses - IPC-wise - then the second option is better.  To give values:

11 bmr, 1 arm, 1 inf - 94% chance of victory (assuming at least 1 land unit kept to take territory), expected IPC loss of 75 (1 inf, 6 bmr)
5 inf, 5 rtl, 5 arm - 85% chance of victory, expected loss of 31 IPC (5 inf, 4 rtl)

Of course, the second option is more reasonable, since you lose less to gain the territory and you have units to defend in subsequent turns.