Posts made by Warwick

My plan call for ignoring London on turn #1 and reducing the rest of England. When England starts it move it will have lost Scotland and Liverpool. Only the forces in London will be able to fight.

There should be 2 INF + 3-4 ARM in liverpool. London is struck at the start of turn 2 with 8 INF + 3-4 ARM + 4-5 FTR + 4-5 TAC + 1 BMB

London defends with 12 - 13 INF + 2 FTR + 1 MECH + 2 BMBs

Round 1
Avg hit on attack 8.4 or so
Avh hits on Def 7.4

Round 2
Attack - 7.25
Def - 4.6

Round 3
Attack - Finishes London
Defense - 1.75 hit

Losses Attacker - 8 INF 2 ARM 2 FTR 2 TAC
Losses Defender - 13 INF 2 FTR 2 BMB 1 MECH 32 IPC in bank

Total IPC Losses
Attacker - 78
Defender - 119

Where do the two extra FTRs come from?

The power of the early attack is seems to be a trap for UK. If they defend London they lose Cairo and Gibraltar. Italy gets to grow into a 50 pt power. Germany should still hit 70 IPC per turn to 75 IPC and Japan can get to 100 IPC. This matches well versus a 45 to 50 IPC Russia, 100 US, 40 pt UK (8 - 10 ANZAC, 12 - 15 FEC, 20 UK). The Axis would be out producing the Allies while operating on interior lines. I like that match up.

A London+Cairo+Calcutta sweep is the same as a Leningrad+Stalingrad+Moscow sweep from a VP standpoint.

EDIT I was in error using TAC to SBR a factory. Unless a Bomber is part of the first turn builds the average damage to the factory will be 14 not 21.

It has not yet been added. Tigerman mentioned he was going to add it.

Liberation and capture are not very different. In fact in the rules there is single paragraph explaining liberation and an assumption as to the definition of capture. As the game is written currently liberation means a special rule regarding who gets the IPCs in all other respects it is the same as capture. In fact in the case of ICs the rules specifically state the IC is captured and not ‘liberated’. Page 30 - Section 1 - Industrial Facility - “If an enemy captures a territory containing an IC, that IC is captured.” All spaces are captured from the enemy. If the space originally belonged to an ally still in possession of its capitol then the ally gains the IPC. That is the only current definition of liberation. It can be expanded but that is what there is.

What if Russia takes Helsinki and the Germans take it back. Does Finland need to wait 4 turns until it rebuilds its minor IC or does one just appear? Since it is legal to have 2 factories in one location the FEC player can now build a 2nd minor factory in Calcutta. A strict reading of the rules supports this conclusion as the base criteria for a factory build is “an original territory with sufficient production level.”  No mention of the presence of a factory making the build illegal. It has been a general assumption that one factory per zone was the limit but nothing in the rules support that position. I am certain the intent is one factory per area it is not recorded in the rules and introducing locations where multiple factories can exist really muddies the water.

If the question of how minors produced navy started this how about the question of how did France build its navy? or Russia? These are major powers that have no ability to build ships.

……

Ok I have taken my inner rules lawyer out behind the barn and beaten him with a stick. I am just going to focus on the great game that we have and not worry about the details. They will get straightened out eventually. :)

Wow that is a big change as all my Russian plans involve 3 units per turn in Warsaw. Also doesn’t this mean the minor factory in Paris is destroyed on recapture leaving France liberated, collecting IPC and no factory.

I think the addition of factories to the Balkans is a mistake. I think it is better if you treat the Axis Minors like the Chinese and say they can place no more than 3 units per turn. The addition of factories raises too many questions. For instance can the Axis invade a Minor and capture it? I would much rather attack Helsinki and capture a Minor factory I can build at in the North than have the extra INF a turn. It also adds 4 factories that can be captured by the Allies only. It just raises too more issues than it solves.

I have played 4 or 5 sessions using rules 7.0 through 7.2. I have played the Axis 4 times and the allies once. In each Axis game I have followed the same path.

Turn 1 - Take Reims, Paris, Denmark, Oslo, Narvik, Warsaw, and West Poland. I active Finland and the other Axis Minors. Hit China in 3 spots killing 6 or 7 INF and build a couple factories on the main land. Occupy FIC and Siam. Take out Greece.
Turn 2 - Take Eastern Poland if offered. Sink the Eastern Med Fleet. Reduce China a bit further.
Turn 3 - Hit Russia and hit DEI in the pacific

In all 4 sessions Japan has exploded with 90+ IPC by turn 5. Topping out out in my most recent game around 110 with more growth coming. Germany tends to do well with 70 to 80 IPC and Italy struggles with 30 or so. I generally win an attrition struggle in Russia and with Calcutta secure an Axis victory. I do not think this strategy is unbeatable in anyway but it is somewhat historical. My 5-0 record has mostly to do with my roommate. Who is a very nice guy that has a lot learn about strategy games. In each of our games he has lost significant battles late in the game by overlooking my force dynamics and positions. This results in the American counter-attack being delayed a couple turns and the Axis using the time to secure a victory. In our most recent game he finally came close to victory and with the speed he improves will certainly be competitive if I continue doing the same opening over and over.

In that light I want to swap to an Operation Sealion on turn 1 to shake things up. Here is my basic opening.

Combat moves impulse #1
1 - German Navy at Stettin to Sea zone 15. TRS carries 1 Tank and 1 INF. Sink DD in 15. Amphib into Scotland. Support amphib with BB and CA for shore bombardment and 1 Bomber for ground support.
2 - Elbing forces move into Warsaw with 1 FTR in support.
3 - Hit Reims with 10 INF + 5 MECH + 1 ART + 2 TANKS + 2 FTR + 2 TAC
4 - Hot London -SBR- 2 FTR 2 TAC - Target AA (can be reduced to 1 TAC but I want that AA)

Builds
3 TRS - Stettin
7 INF + 2 ART - West Germany
1 ARM - WEST Germany

NCM
1 - Rebase 1 INF to Helsinki (Bomber to West Germany)
2 - MECH through the Axis Minors to active
3 - Berlin INF move to West Germany to support ops against London
4 - Position Atlantic naval assets for impulse 2

Combat Moves Impulse 2
1 - All subs hit carrier fleet off the Scapa Flow (northern UK fleet)
2 - Survivors from Scotland + 4 INF + 2 ART + 2 ARM hit Liverpool + 1 or 2 FTR in support
3 - SBR - London - 2 FTR + 2 BMB + 2 TAC
4 - Paris - All in Reims + 1 or 2 FTR + 3 TAC
5 - Hit the canadian fleet with a CA and 1 sub

This should result in Liverpool being reduced to a Minor factory and 7 or 8 Land units occupying it. Turn 1 UK has 32 points to spend (with the 3 going to SA) and 20 points of damage on the UK factory. (21 being the average from the bombers hitting the factory.

All German naval assets are in area 15 under the scramble protection of West Germany. Turn 2 sees a London assault with 12 to 15 units plus air support. The US enters a turn or so early compared to my usual actions. However I like the play of the game from that point. First Italy is freed up to expand against a weakened UK. Japan gets free reign to strike where they want. German simply needs to expand into Norway and the Balkans and defend against Russia rather than attack.

Some of the Axis powers that are undermined by normal Allied play now have teeth. For example, the German +1/-1 attack on the Eastern Front reads on the first turn Germany attacks Russia. Normally the Russians backwards deploy their forces making the attack wasted. Now the Germans can use it as a devastating counter-attack.

In any case I invite critique from the peanut gallery. Thanks

On the naval stuff you might want to address the issue of capture more thoroughly.

Take area 42 on the map. It is next to Crete, Corinth, and Greece a capture on Corinth would result in trigger the capture roll on the navy. I do not believe that is the intend of the rules.

Also on Pro-Allied Neutrals (not specific to 7.2)

Turn 1 - Germany takes Warsaw. Western and Eastern Poland remain. Do these revert to Pro-Allied neutral spaces or do the IPC still go to UK?

From Pro-Allied Neutrals page 28

“If any naval units adjacent to a territory attacked or captured then roll for each naval unit.”

I am assuming the reference to an attack is misplaced. If I send my Albanian Inf (1-attacker) in a suicide run at Greece (5-Defenders) the Greek Navy would not roll for surrender. The roll occurs only on the capture of an adjacent province. Is this correct?

Thanks

I can not find the rule allowing Japan to build a Factory in Siam. Has this been dropped?

EDIT Found it. I was looking in the wrong place.

There is a post called allied strategy on this page or something like that. It contains a discussion on the topic you are interested in.

I had Italy’s navy list in front of me. So it was just a matter of convenience. For comparison here is the Royal Navy

At start strength in 1939

15 BB
7 CV
66 CA
184 DD
60 SUB

v7.1 at start forces

4 BB
2 CV
3 CA
10 DD
2 SUB

Compared to Italy ratios

BB correct
CV correctish (UK had very small carriers so it is reasonable to believe a UK carrier represent more CVs than a US carrier)
CA England is short 3 CAs (or Italy has too many)
DD England is short 4 DD
SUBs correct

Historically there would be zero chance for Germany to significantly degrade the UK naval capacity, however we want a game that is fun to play rather than a pure WWII simulation.

information from www.naval-history.net

Turn 3 - Murmansk convoy box is worth 4. 2 Normally plus 2 for lend Lease
Turn 4 - Murmansk worth 6. 2 Normally 4 Lend lease
Turn 5 - Murmansk work 8. 2 and 6

The convoy box would behave as per all other rules. If during income collect phase it is enemy occupied then you loss all the points.

England/US would have to actively place DDs in the box to fight off subs

Axis would not get any money but Subs would interdict the whole value of the space. So one sub in the Murmansk convoy spot could cost the Russians 14 IPC

One basic balance change would be to place the Axis as the default winner rather than the allies. I would use a 2 trigger system to determine Axis victory

1. Expansion trigger - Axis need to take 10 or 11 cities to qualify. This is basically the historical limit of Axis expansion (10) or +1 (11 cities).
2. Production level - Must maintain a certain amount of production by a certain turn.

For the second piece this means functioning factories. For example, Japan surrenders on any turn that ends with Japan having less than 20 factory slots. (2 fully functional major factories.) This would reasonably approximate the historical point when Japan did surrender. To achieve it you would have to reduce Japans point total to below its starting point and bring Japan under Strategic bombing. (or successfully invade Japan’s home island.)

A similar rule against Italy would cause Italy surrender on any Italian turn ending with Turin or Rome is in allied hands. This would very much simulate the limited support Italy had for this conflict. This is especially true since German troops could not help to retake the space if lost before the Italian surrender would trigger.

A victory system like this would place to burden of attack on the Axis initially but then shift that burden to the allies in the second stage of the war.

I would alter the lend lease rules to be new points to the allies. For example, on turn 3 place 1d6 in each UK convoy zone set to 1. These points are added to each UK nation. (SO +1 canada, +3 or 4 to UK, + 3 FEC) The US can not do any form of Lend lease by the current rules. On turn 4 place 2 dice in the Murmansk convoy zone. On turn 5 and onwards increase the value of the dice by 1 per turn. For historical purposes a dice could be placed in Persia for the Russians as well that increases in the same manner.

This would eventually lead to the Axis defeat, however now all they have to do is last until a certain point and still win the game. Balancing then becomes setting this turn correctly (and the levels of lend lease) to reward good play by the Axis or the Ally player.

I mentioned this in an other thread but several navies are over-powered for the period.

Using Italy as a base line then the following ratios would apply

1 BB = 4 real vessels
1 CV = 2 carriers ( based over the Eagle and Illustrious being the Brit East Med fleet)
1 CA = 10 Cruisers
1 DD = 13 Destroyers
1 Sub = 25 subs

Applying these ratios to neutrals we produce the following strength levels

Greece
BB - (1) - Greece had no battleships during WWII. The Lemnos and the Kiklis were both decommisioned. They served as a barraks ship and a AA training vessel.

DD - (2) - About 100% over strength. The Greek had 1 old CA, 12 Old Destroyers, and 2 modern Destoryers.

Greek navy should be 1 DD. The Greeks joined the allies with 1 CA (Averof), 6 DDs, and 5 Subs. They would grow to 44 vessels but these were new builds purchased by the Greek government in exile and should be subsumed into UK normal builds.

Yugoslavia Navy

DD - (1) - About 200% over strength. The Yugos had 1 CL and 4 DDs total. The rest were torpedo boats.

Norway

BB - (2) - No clue why these are here. The only battleships Norway possessed were 4 coastal defense vessels which they referred to as battleships. They displaced about 4000 tonnes each (making them about a 1/3 the size of a CA). They were basically upped gunned DDs.

DD - (1) - Norway had 4 modern destroyer (the Sleipner Class) and about a dozen very old DDs. 1 DD seems about right (this would include there coastal vessels)

SUB - (1) - Norway did not possess a significant number of subs

Denmark

DD - (1) - Denmark’s surface fleet consisted of 2 coastal defense boats (about the size of a big DD or light cruiser) and 11 torpedo boats. Vastly overrated compared to 13 DDs in the Italian navy.

SUB - (1) - 10 subs total the Danish navy all could be crewed by 10 each. Should not be represented in the game.

–------------

If the allies need these forces for game balance then they should remain, however from a historical perspective the following changes should be explored.

Reduce the Greek fleet to 1 DD
Reduce the Norway Fleet to 1 DD
Eliminate the Yugo Fleet
Eliminate the Danish Fleet

I would also entertain switching Denmark to Pro-Axis with the special rule their defensive forces are removed on occupation rather than added to the Axis. Denmark order their defensive forces to stand down rather than defend in a hopeless cause.

Why doesn’t Italy just build a Minor factory in Tobruk and take Greece/Corinth first move.

Consolidate Navy at Taranto covered by 2 FTR and 1 TAC. Collapse INF to Tobruk reinforce with BMB and TAC.

Turn 2 sink Brit Navy off Cairo.

The combined Italian Navy and Air force can strike any place in the East Med with a force that inflicts 7.167 hits per round. The combined Pacific and Med Navy for the Brits (including the land based fighter moved to a carrier) produces 4.42 hit per round and can absorb 12 hits. The Greek navy is typically reduced to one ship by taking Greece and does not materially change the outcome of the fight. I should also add we have a house rule that reduces the neutrals Battleships to cruisers. I find neutrals have ridiculously powerful navies. The Greek had no battleship to speak of and 2 CAs total. They did have several DD and a large merchant fleet. And don’t get me started on the god-damned Norwegians!

Defensively the Italian navy can inflict 5.42 hits per round. If the Brits attack (assuming average rolls) the Italians will sink the Brits with a 1BB 2 CA 1 DD force left to deal with the Western Med Fleet.

If the Brits can link the Pacific, Eastern Med, and Western Med fleet then the Italian commander needs to be summarily executed.

One option would be to alter damage to unit build ratio

Major Factory
0 Damage - 10 Units
1-2 Damage - 9 Units
3-4 Damage - 8 Units
…
19-20 Damage - 0 units

This would allow the defender to set his factories to levels that would produce negative outcomes to an attacker. For example I could repair the West Germany Factory to 16 points of damage (spending 4) and build 2 units. This would reduce the air campaign against Paris and West Germany to a 4 point loss per turn for the Axis without committing anything more than repair and AA. The Axis could still build 4 units per turn in the West. I rarely build more than this during turns 2 through 7 when the US is not in the war and not in a position to threaten the coast with sustained operation.

Unescorted bombing missions had attrition rates which were too high, however when escorted by fighters strategic bombing was instrumental to the ending of the war in both theaters. I believe an unescorted rule would help. If a fighter intercepts a bomber without fighter cover it hits on a 6 rather than a 3.

Profit by Mission
1 bomber vs AA = 3.88 IPC
1 Bomber vs 1 FTR = 3.08 IPC
1 Bomber vs 1 FTR and 1 AA = .2 IPC

Given current rules a single bomber flying against 1 FTR and an AA will produce .2 IPC in damage per turn. The bomber alone can not produce a scenario where it loses points. The defender must therefore over commit fighters to produce a negative outcome. Since fighters can not defensively respond to bombers the defender must station his fighters at each factory multiplying his defensive problem.

For example, 3 bombers in London would require 1 FTR in Paris, 3 FTRs in West Germany, 3 FTRs in Berlin, 1 FTR in Stettin, and 3 FTRs in Turin along with AAs in each location just to reach a point where they are only slightly losing. The Axis would need to commit an additional FTR to each location to create solid defense.

Bombers are currently one of the best ROI units in the game, up to a certain threshold. In fact, you could raise the cost of bombers to 20 and they would still be a ‘profitable’ unit if paired with a fighter.

(Mission profit assumes target is a major factory. It is slightly less positive for the bomber against minor factories. In fact negative for FTR+AA combo)