Posts made by vodot

@Argothair Can you post some pics of the map, setup, unit mix?

Breaking up the US East coast, splitting SEUS (6) off from NEUS (was 12, now 10):

…and refining the West: NWUS to 4 IPC (was 2):

These changes net the US +6 IPCs, intended for a stronger US without NOs, or for a system that cuts the US income in half for a while e.g. 1940 and earlier starts.

Experimenting with new Med SZs:

And finally, some Soviet tweaks to add a few IPC and granularity:

Split Siberia (1) off from SFE

Split Irkutsk (1) off from Yakut

Net change of +2 for Soviets who have not gotten much from my other tweaks and have fallen somewhat behind in the IPC counts.

TL;DR: I think Kamikaze tokens are worth about 4-5 IPCs each to Japan, and probably worth more as deterrents and bombardment stoppers than solely as ship-killers.

@AlphaKappa I would defer to people with more experience, but Kamikazes have two concrete or ‘hard’ purposes and at least one ‘soft’ purpose.

1. [Hard] Sink valuable ships
With their target select feature, Kamikazes can hit large ships directly and ignore cannon fodder like destroyers and subs. (or maybe sink a couple key destroyers to allow subs to dodge planes and surprise strike a now-exposed fleet).

• In the simplest sense, there are a bunch of scenarios for Kamikaze hit values:
  – Destroyer (8 IPC)
  – 1/2 Carrier; No lost fighters (8 IPC)
  – 1/2 Battleship (10 IPC)
  – Cruiser (12 IPC)
  – 1/2 Carrier causing 1/2 sunk Fighter (16/2 + 10/2 = 13 IPC)
  – 1/2 Carrier causing 1 sunk Fighter (16/2 + 10 = 18 IPC)
  – 1/2 Carrier causing 2 sunk Fighters (!!) (16/2 + 20 = 28 IPC)
• Calculating the average value here could be as simple as figuring out the expected damage per Kamikaze roll with an equation like $Kavg = %h x $Tavg, where %h = 1/3 (Kamikazes hit on a 2) and the $Tavg = ~12 (trying to place this near the ‘center of gravity’ for hit scenarios) . So with those numbers, the average value of a Kamikaze is about 4 IPC.
• Of course, you’d probably want assurance you’re going to sink those targets and not simply allocate one Kamikaze per expected hit. This pushes the value of Kamikazes down considerably, since you can’t wait to see if they were effective before sending out the next wave. The laws of RNG say that you’re bound to overallocate in some cases and underallocate in others.
• Finally, this assumes that these targets would even present themselves in the relevant Sea Zones. However, this objection can be resolved by qualifying the question to be: How much is a Kamikaze worth assuming that valid uses present themselves?
• I would gloss, then, that for this purpose ship-sinking Kamikaze tokens are worth between 3-4 IPC each.

2. [Hard] Prevent Bombardment during Amphibious Landings

• A single Kamikaze token can prevent all naval bombardment from a given SZ during amphibious invasion. Figuring the value in this use case is speculative and situational, but we can try with some big assumptions:

  • Lets assume that the targets for bombardment are always infantry units, so a successful bombard hit is going to cost Japan 3 IPCs.
  • Because most contested amphibious invasions land at least 4 units with bombardment support increasingly likely in the mid-endgame where Kamikaze could happen, lets broadly assume that the average number of prevented bombard shots in a Kamikaze-contested landing is 3, and that those shots are going to be taken by 2 battleships and 1 Cruiser.

• With these assumptions and the simplest setup, we can roughly guess that A kamikaze token used this way is worth $Kavg = Bh x $Tb, where BHavg = 1 5/6 (the average prevented bombardment hits = 0.66 + 0.66 + 0.5) and $Tb = 3 IPC (the cost of each prevented infantry hit), for a total savings of 5.5 IPCs worth of Infantry units.

• The real impact of the Kamikaze in the case, however, would be how much extra the attacking player has to bring to account for the lost bombardment. In this case, that’s probably close to the expected damage that those three saved infantry are going to inflict on his landing force, which for a single round of combat against a far-superior landing force is about 3 IPC (0.33 hit chance/inf x 3 infantry); in a much closer battle (in which case, why are you invading in the first place?) lasting multiple rounds the impact could be closer to 6 or even the full 9. Let’s say then that our impact to the attacker is somewhere between 3 and 6 IPCs.

• But finally, the spent Kamikaze token might actually hit something! If we go after a cruiser, say, then using the equation from 1. above gives an additional average value of 4 IPC (12 IPC cruiser sunk x 1/3 of the time).

• This would give the average bombardment-preventing Kamikaze token a conservative value of 4 + 3 = 7 IPC, varying wildly by situation.

3. [Soft] Deter Naval Incursions

• With at least the potential to sink 6 escort ships in one go, Kamikazes have a fun ‘soft’ threat value in the game. It’s unlikely to come off that way, of course, and the threat dissipates with each spend token as the game goes on, but it’s at least possible that one single massive Kamikaze strike could net the Japanese player an incredible 72 IPC of impact or 12 IPC per token. This would be enough to swing a majority of endgame naval confrontations, and has to at least be accounted for by the US player if mounting a KJF.
• If I were the US and wanted to conservatively plan around a massive endgame kamikaze strike, I would plan to take fully three hits and so overbudget for that attack by at least 36 IPC.
• So for the purpose of deterring an endgame naval incursion, I would give Kamikaze tokens a value of 6 IPC each.

All of this asks what they’re worth, not what I would pay as Japan where resources are precious and actual units are worth much more than mere potentialities.

While my assumption-ridden stuff above yields a value of around 6, I would personally probably only pay 4-5.

Allowing the Japanese player to purchase/replenish 1 Kamikaze token per turn to a maximum of 6 at a cost of 5 IPC each seems like a fun and relatively fair house rule… although it has the potential to make the home and home-adjacent islands perpetually un-bombardable. Then again, those dug-in Japanese were awfully tenacious on those islands…

Start of Germany 6 - Moscow has fallen (for good). Paris has been liberated but will be re-taken.

The US fleet was trapped in the north Pacific and then suicided into the Japanese armada. Gave my son a brief and ultimately futile lesson about blockers as mine were at first mocked, then explained, then admired… and summarily swept away.

At the end of J5 he ended up with 4 carriers and a wounded Battleship off the coast of Southwestern US, but no surviving destroyers within 4 Sea Zones… so on US5, instead of staffing transports headed for Germany, I built 7 subs underneath his carriers out of spite and a desire to educate >:)

Italy has been pushed nearly out of Africa and is turtling.

Japan has been pushed almost completely out of China, has 6-7 IPCs in Russia, and is outrageously strong at sea.

UK has remained very strong, which has been extremely fun and unusual.

French/free french struggle was good, although Vichy did not take much action.

ANZAC cat and mouse game with Japan feels great, could see them being a pest for a Japan that goes hard into china/russia/mainland IC.

Russia pathetically weak with no hope of survival, adjustments needed. Maybe start with half income and a 1-turn income delay instead of 3.

US very weak, unable to defend coastline against determined Japan even with 100% pacific investment. adjustments needed. With a slow start and half income with no NOs for help they needs more money on the board, also probably a significant bonus once at war. Not sure how to pull that off in a middleweight map.

Allied surrender looms.

@Argothair can’t wait to check it out!

Playtesting notes…
It’s turn 4 and Game 1 is already turning into a rout in favor of the Axis. Starting Conditions:

1. Setup mirrored G40.2 as closely as possible on this new board with no bid for the Allies, which should give the game a solid pro-axis tilt.
2. My (8yo) son took the Axis with his usual handicap:
   – Germany +10 IPC/turn and1 free infantry to be placed in any controlled territory each turn
   – Japan same as Germany
   – Italy same as Germany/Japan but only +5 IPC/turn

Rules for game 1:
3. US starts with 0 IPC, half income until turn 3 or attacked per the above, but also gain half income as one-time bonus when attacked *(we changed this on the fly as their position looks utterly desperate). I wanted their full income as a bonus, but was voted down.
4. USSR as above (starts with half income until turn 3 or USSR is attacked). He attacked me turn 2.
5. We used G40 AAA rules (5 IPC instead of 6, taken as casualties, roll 1@1 up to 3x for each AAA unit, etc.)
6. Battleships repair at the beginning of your turn (instead of at the end). Damaged BB fight at -2/-2.
7. One non-Capital originally-owned TT per turn can be “Developed” at a cost of 5 IPC. Development raises the effective IPC Value of a TT by 1, including for the purpose of placing units there. Only one TT per turn can be Developed, and a TT may only have one Development in it at a time. If the territory is captured, any Development there is destroyed. In our game India was Developed by the UK on turn 1.

Current state: It’s the end of UK4.

Japan is making 40 IPC, has 7(!) carriers in the pacific and is halfway across China and Russia. He neglected the money islands until just last turn and has not threatened India (where UK made an immediate, huge investment), but has a ~200 IPC fleet at Hawaii that dwarfs the US pacific fleet by 2:1.

Germany has 10+ fighters and 40+ infantry on the Eastern Front. G and R are trading Caucasus. R hoping to hold Moscow with UK help (UK invading Scandanavia and coming down from Karelia & up from Iran).

UK is still the income leader (not for long with Japan taking DEI) which has allowed them to fight well on two fronts. They just sunk both the German and Italian navies… but my son rolls ridiculously well (which I publicly decry but secretly enjoy) and both uk fleets (India–>Med and England–>Baltic) took significant losses and may be wiped out in retaliation next turn. They’ve been stymied in Western Europe by a huge luftwaffe and a large German naval investment in the baltic (2 carriers?!) and had to resort to Norway.

US only just lumbering into the war. Feels extremely underpowered with an income in only the high-30s and a roaring japan on the doorstep. We gave the US a half-income war bonus, but that’s 18IPCs of peanuts. I think that for this to work without a bid the US wants an income boost of at least 5 and perhaps a fat bonus when/if attacked as well.

ANZAC in the pacific has done exactly zero except to hold the Australian mainland and vaguely threaten Japan’s far south perimeter, which feels… right.

Vichy vs Free France has been a back and forth, feels very good. At the start the map split 50/50 (expected) but the navy split in the Axis favor with two defections, a couple scuttles, and only a single destroyer joining the Free French.

Italy ignored the European Neutrals and made a big push into Africa instead, quickly swept the UK out of Cairo but have not yet been able to cross Suez (UK holds mideast). The combined Free French and British have also been able to hold them at FEA and Rhodesia while pushing Vichy out of lower Africa. LOVING how Africa has played out so far in this game with landings and battles on both sides up and down the African coast.

Currently the Axis have 12 VCs to the Allies 9 (Rio still Neutral), and halfway though turn 4 are almost in a state of Minor Victory according to my revised victory city chart:

I think the game is playing OK, and it’s always hard to account for the handicap & skill effects of having an 8yo at the helm-- although, if I can brag on my son a bit, he does his own Punch, Count, and Skew calculations before every major attack.

I’ll be curious to see how hopeless the US situation is. If my son’s Japanese can take US territory on the west coast, I think some kind of adjustment is warranted even with his handicaps.

My son keeps buying Japanese Aircraft Carriers (why am I giving him such a huge handicap, again?) so I need more flight decks. But 7 (yes, 7!) Shinanos is more than anyone can bear. Thus, the addiction continues with a new Akagi, now with quasi historical markings that differentiate it somewhat from the Shinano deck:

Updated pdf with everything: Carrier_Decals_lilly_vodot_v6.pdf

@Pvt_Griff siiiick

@TitusJames haha yeah, funny how that happens :)

@Pvt_Griff said in 3d Printed Battle Box [Guadalcanal]:

@coedewa You mean something like this ?

Etsy Battle Box

they’re talking about a 3D-prinatble version of this thing:

That would be cool, and a complete piece of cake to model! I’m swamped at the moment but maybe I can sneak that in…

@FranceNeedsMorePower game balance and fun choices are always the priority for me, so assuming the setup you choose (Oztea etc.) is well-balanced, then the Dutch setup would also have to include compensatory units for Japan so that they could always choose to just conduct the normal attack and expect to win the normal way— in which case we get to see the Dutch fight a [losing] battle, which was a main objective here— or maybe Japan chooses to do something ahistorical with those units instead, in which case now the Dutch get to hang out for a while looking glamorous, or even perhaps doing something small and useful.

@barnee The original classic yellow was great, although it was tough to differentiate from the UK at times and has been a BEAR to color-match for 3D printing… just like the current “pumpkin orange”…

@FranceNeedsMorePower fwiw most people use bright orange to represent the Dutch. Fully agree we need some more Dutch oomph!

I can’t stop remixing these - here’s an update with every version, including Lilly’s originals and my remixes + the Akagi sculpt from AA41:

6a9e7491-bf3b-4ee8-8887-368a9a86c19f-Carrier_Decals_lilly_vodot_v5.pdf

@TitusJames Nice, looks like you went with a heavier version of the “transport-the-actual-oil-barrels-home” rules. Very cool!

Japan is difficult to take with one monolithic territory to defend. Hokkaido in the north helps but is an ahistorical site for an invasion; industrialized Kyushu in the south was the historical choice, so representing it on the map should be fun. Furthermore, ANZAC + lots of new UK IPCs in the Pacific (and even a few new US IPCs) means that Japan may need a boost. I think Japan is plenty strong, so I’ll include both options.

Kyushu (2) split off from Japan (reduced to 6):

Kyushu (2) by itself (leaving Japan proper at 8 IPCs):

I have long thought it too difficult to assault the Americas, with giant block territories too easily defended. If the Axis reach the mid Pacific or mid Atlantic unopposed, let’s strike some fear into those pond-hopping Yankees with some subdivision!

• Central US moved to left half of map
• Northwestern US (2) split off from [South]western US (10)
• British Columbia (1) split off from Western Canada (0):

• Central US moved to left half of map
• Central Canada (1) split off from Eastern Canada (1):

@TitusJames Everything looks awesome!

What are your Oil Rules? Have you checked out this thread, compiling the community’s Oil-related house rules over the decades?

Be sure to add your own, if you do!

ANZAC-ification!

This modular overlay for G40 Lite adds ANZAC as a potentially playable power, giving them three extra IPC to play with for a total of 10:

• ANZAC roundels and a recolor for Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and the Solomons.
• New Zealand boosted to 2 IPCs.
• Northern Territory boosted to 2 IPCs
• Western Australia boosted to 1 IPC

Preview:

Full overlay download (17MB):
https://www.mediafire.com/view/64s28ot0aw7tusu/G40_Lite_ANZAC.png/file

Analysis and initial thoughts on mechanics/impact:

• Removes 7 IPCs from the UK income, reducing total purchasing power but focusing their colonial spend on India and S. Afr.
• Pulls any extant South Pacific UK units out of their control/turn, weakening them overall as they can no longer attack in concert.
• Forces some direct Australian investment by the Allies, while also…
• Limiting the direct Australian investment by the Allies to the ANZAC income— no more Bombers or fully loaded Carriers dropping into the South Pacific out of nowhere.
• Forces both sides to may a modicum of attention to the South Pacific, which previously could be (and usually is) tacitly ignored by both sides via mutual neglect.
• Adds 3 IPCs to the Allies total income (more money is is fun!) but also siphons it off into a minor power which have a greatly diluted effect on the game due to the principle of concentration of force.

aaaaaand one more: the great, the impossible, the terrifyingly and impractically over-gunned Project Kostromitinov! These pieces were included in AA41, and are largest A&A sculpts in any edition of the game, ever. Let’s get one on the table!

Time for another goofy house rule.

Проект Костромитинов
If the copy of the game being played includes the Kostromitinov sculpt as the Soviet Aircraft Carrier, and if Karelia is USSR-controlled, then after each COLLECT INCOME phase of the USSR turn that player may set aside 6 IPCs. If he does, place one Kostromitinov Heavy Carrier on its side (under construction) in Karelia (not in the adjacent Sea Zone). Only one such carrier may be under construction at a time. As long as it is under construction, this piece remains on the board in Karelia (even if captured) and has no effect on the game.

Each turn that ends with Karelia under USSR control the USSR player may set aside a further 6 IPCs. When 18 IPCs have been set aside in this way, immediately launch the completed Kostromitinov from Karelia into the adjacent Sea Zone.

The Kostromitinov Heavy Carrier has the following stats: A2/D3/M2. Requires 2 Hits to Destroy. May carry up to 3 fighters/tactical bombers in any combination.

Full File, with Kostromitinov:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/lk7jy06dbm0uiw6/carrier_decals_HumorlessFrench_Aquila_Kostromitinov.pdf/file

Here’s my promised photo with a full set, complete and magnitized: