@ABWorsham:
Do any of you play with house rules concerning damaged capital ships? I believe the rules state upon next turn ships are repaired.
Do any of you have dry dock rules or IPC charges for repairing Carriers or Battleships?
Thought about rolling a dice for repairs, would cost 1-6 IPCs that way. Would still need to be next to a friendly NB
Yep Merry Christmas to all, nothing brings the holidays together better then a war game lol
GHG, nice way to continue the discussion of why sz 102 has a special rule. It is also worth pointing out that the rules were changed to allow the US to DOW in the event that London is taken, which makes sz102 more significant. There seems to be a good percentage of people, myself included, that like to do some kind of Sea Lion purchase to keep it on the table. Maybe they buy a little navy/bmrs G1, or try to keep the German BB alive etc…. Some might save IPCs to keep the allies guessing. This keeps the UK honest, and if the English falter they could pay a heavy price. Even if the UK does everything right Sea lion could still be pulled off.
London Calling (responsible buys for UK and US staging in sz102, plus bmrs in DC) is a good tool to have in your allied bag of tricks. If the Germans were serious about doing Sea Lion, this combined allied strat may change their minds. It tells Germany that it won’t be easy and there will be costly consequences. I agree w/GHG that US building mostly loaded carriers, destroyers, bmrs in the Atlantic the first couple turns is a good use of its income, and is in no way a waste. In the case of no Sea lion the naval assets will still be used to threaten Germany and get troops to Europe. The bmrs will be hitting German ICs, or sinking the Baltic fleet so its all good.
US can build Europe the first couple turns, then add to your Pac fleet later.
I’d be interested in a vid on regaining London after Germany places 9 transports in the Ocean G2, when you can assume that they will take London. Some German players might assault Scotland to block the landing zone for the bombers.
Thats why the UK should activate Eire w/mech on UK1. It gives the US bmrs another landing spot.
Just to add to GHG sz102 set-up: To aid UK when there is a Sea lion threat, you can also have the UK send their mech over to activate Eire on UK1 (the mech can generally make it back to London on UK2). When the Germans see your US bmr build they could free up a transport to take Scotland when they invade leaving you nowhere to land those bmrs. Activating Eire would all but insure that you have a landing place because I can’t see the Germans taking both Scotland and Eire in a Sea lion. Sparing one transport would be ruff, but 2 would be devastating.
One other Chinese rule is that say the Japanese build a naval and/or air base on an original Chinese territory (Chinese emblem on it). We will use Kwangsi (adjacent to sz36) as an example because Japan often times will build an air base/naval base on Kwangsi to extend the range of ships and air units (to amphib India). If Kwangsi is liberated the base(s) stays on the map and the allies can then use these bases as long as they are functional (have not been bombed out w/SBR). So a Chinese air base would extend the range of allied air units and the flying tiger +1, and allow the other allies to scramble to the sea (flying tiger can’t scramble because it can’t leave the mainland). A Chinese naval base would extend allied ships +1 in movement and be able to repair ships there as well (of course China can’t build ships). However China is not allowed to repair its newly acquired bases, so if they are SBR’d and non functional then they can’t be used or fixed by the allies. In the event that the Japanese recapture’s one of these bases Japan could repair and use it again (kinda weird LOL).
“Major industrial complexes can only be built on originally controlled (not captured)
territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher.”“If a Japanese industrial
complex is built on a Chinese territory and that territory is
later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied
power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.”I think this means you can put also major on Manchuria and Kwangsi, right? They are definitely “originally controlled” but also “Chinese territory” so they do burn down…but I think you can put them on those two. Could be wrong, just don’t see another qualifier in the rules.
I think you meant Manchuria and Kiangsu because they are both worth 3 IPCs, but no Japan can’t build a major on them because they are Chinese original territories that Japan has captured before the game starts (they have Chinese emblem).
So does the coastal strip count as chinese and not japanese. (Except korea)
Therfore small factories only in those areas with the blue stars
paceman, I see that from previous posts you understand that the Japanese are limited to building minor ICs on the coastal territories in Asia (Korea is the only territory that would support a major for Japan). So the Japanese can build minor ICs on captured Chinese (which they start with), British, and French territories that are worth at least 2 IPCs.
I just wanted to point out that if the Japanese build a minor IC on an original Chinese territory, and the allies liberate that territory, the minor IC is removed from the board not captured (the Chinese don’t use ICs, and the capture capital rules don’t apply to them). In mid to late game any Japanese IC in Asia will become a target for the allies to slow down Japanese production in Asia. This is bitter sweet for Japan because it sucks that the they can lose the IC, but at least the allies can’t use it to build units either. Sometimes the allies will invade a Chinese territory w/IC knowing they can’t hold it, just to remove the Japanese production center.
Obviously captured British territories or FIC are also good spots for Japan to build a minor on, and some even come with ports. It is worth noting though that if liberated these ICs could be pumping out allied units, including US units in some cases (depending on what capitols are in axis hands).
The OOB rules have the axis and allies playing two different games IMO. The Axis play for a VC win, and the Allies are playing the longer annihilation game (must take all 3 axis capitals, that’s going to take a while lol). That’s why the allies rarely win OOB, and a bid is often used. Seems to me that the bids don’t necessarily allow the allies to win in the short term, but rather we are placing units on the board to stop the axis from achieving their victory in the first 10 rounds. This gives the allies time to where they can over power the axis at some point (forcing an annihilation game).
I’m not a fan of the axis VC win, because as pointed out it can be a cheap way to win the game that you have invested many hours into. Besides that, I also don’t like how the axis can completely sell out one side to gain victory on the other. Like when the Japanese buzz Moscow with their entire air force just to take out a few Russian inf allowing the Germans to take it when they wouldn’t have had a chance otherwise. To add insult to injury the Japanese have also bypassed India/Middle East and their transport fleet goes over to attack Egypt for the last VC on the Europe map (if just to soften it up). Boom game over, but the Japanese have basically lost all holding and objectives on the Pac map (with exception of Tokyo).
However, on the other hand the axis VC victory conditions are set-up so the allies have to play on both sides of the map somewhat. If that wasn’t in place then the allies could spend all income on one side, totally ignoring the other w/o consequence. Once one of the major axis powers are gone (Germany or Japan) then there really isn’t much hope for the other.
In my opinion the VC condition should be amended to encompass more of a global game. You need to make sure that the axis can’t sell out one side to win on the other. Not sure if this would be enough, but maybe a stipulation that in order for the axis to win on one side, they also need to hold 1/2 the number of needed VC’s for a win on the other. Like an 8 VC win on the Euro side would require the Japanese to also hold a min of 3 VC’s on the Pac side (1/2 of their own VC victory conditions). Likewise for a Pac win the Japanese would need 6 VC’s on the Pac side, and the Euro twins would need to hold 4 VC in Europe (1/2 of the Europe win VC condition). This way you could be kick-n butt on one side, but holding par on the other. This would also give the allies a chance to stop a win on say the Euro side by taking a VC on the on either side.
You could also give the axis a world victory goal of say 13 VCs for the win (maybe 14 for longer game). This way they would basically be able to get to a VC win on one side, but would also have to hold on to certain assets on the other side as well (no sell outs). Stipulate that the axis must also hold at least 1 allied capital to win (London, DC, Moscow, or Paris). I threw in Paris so that it might force the allies to liberate it!
I would also like to see a World VC count for the allies to win as well. Not sure what that number should be, but lets say 15 VC (leaves the axis with only 4 VC’s left). Stipulate that for the allies to win w/15 VC’s they must also hold at least 1 Axis capital (Berlin, Rome, or Tokyo).
@Caesar:
Very rarely do I have ANZAC go for the Dutch Territories outside their own NO. Usually with the starting transport, I take the New Zealand infantry and have them capture Brazil……
This is an interesting take. I have the UK take Brazil on occasion when the Japanese are slow boating, but the Anz could use the income for sure. The only thing is it would take a while to get those Brazilians into action with only one transport unless you put a couple on a US or UK transport (which could be done easily enough).
On a similar note I have had Anz gear up and take all of South America when doing a neutral crush (Argentina/Chile). With the map split where it is you kinda forget how close and easy it is for the Anz to get to S America. Obviously all the other allies need to be in concert at roughly the same time to be effective (and fun).
AAGamer, I read through much of your game and yep India is in TROUBLE. One thing that you should consider in future games is to not pull back w/China, and fight for Yunnan if you can because it is a very strategic territory. In your game Japan took Yunnan on the first turn (yea you rolled bad), but he only had 2 inf holding it. You could have retaken it pretty easily IMO, getting your 6 IPC NO bonus, and chew up some of his inf. Best case is that you trade Yunnan for a turn or two but get your 6 IPC bonus every time you take it back. Plus if you build mech (maybe mech/tank) for UK India in the first turn you might be able to attack the Japanese in Yunnan through Burma. Yea this would keep the US out for an extra turn, but sometimes it is worth it to kill Japanese ground unis on UK2.
Because he still holds Yunnan all his air units can fly from Kwangsi (new air base) to hit India and land in Yunnan. He also has more transports that can make it to India from sz 36 because of his new naval base.
If I’m reading the script right you didn’t move your British BB in sz37, or your destroyer/cruiser from sz 39. You should move that BB ASAP so he can’t sink it where it sits (run 3 spaces maybe sz54 to hook up w/Anz & USA). You should also run the sz 39 ships to safety as well. One other thought is to block out his sz36 fleet from getting to sz 39 (India) by placing your dd in sz 37. If he declares war on you next turn (which seems very likely) he won’t be able to use those transports in sz36 to also attack India (can’t pass through your DD when at war with you). Just to point out though that those sz36 transports would then be used to take the Philippines and Dutch islands etc….
So if you block out the sz 36 transports he only has 6 ground units that can hit India next turn. I’m not sure what you have on India, but if he attacks it will surly cost him some planes. If he waits a turn to attack India then you have bought some time.
I don’t think he would bypass India and sail towards Egypt or S Africa because it would take 3 turns to get there. IDK though maybe the plan is to win in Europe by having Japan take a VC on the Euro map, you are playing Gargantua after all, everything is always on the table lol
Good luck
@-Savage-:
This would not be realistic. By the start of the game, the Soviets had recently concluded a disastrous war with Finland already. They “won” the war but suffered hugely. The territory called “Vyborg” on the map represents the territory the Soviets won from Finland in that war. The Soviets knew at the start of this game that it’s military was a disaster due to Stalin’s purges, and would NOT risk another war, especially to provoke the Germans.
My bad, you are right Savage. The Winter War was over before the game starts, and Vyborg being the spoils of that war starts off as Russian.
@Caesar:
Besides if we’re going to add that kind of history too. Then USSR going back into Finland will surely p�ss off France and UK again.
Yep another “Phony War” but this time vs Russia. Get out or we will shit our pants
@SS:
Thats too bad that Russia and Germany cant fight over Finland without declaring war on each other. Could make this another NO in game.
I agree, and it would be historical too. I also think Russia being allowed to move into certain territories before at war was talked about during the Alpha project, but didn’t make the cut. It would be cool if Russia was able to invade/activate any pro axis/allied neutral that borders original Russian territory before at war, and there are only 3 territories that fit this criteria (Finland, NW Persia, and East Persia). This would also allow the Russians to move into NW Persia before at war w/Euro axis (which they also did historically). I don’t think that the Russians moved into what is Eastern Persia but I don’t see that as being a bad thing because it has no IPC value. Although movement through E Persia would allow Russian mobile ground units access to India on R3 with a simple DOW on Japan (that could suck for Japan and/or Russia lol).
As far as NO’s go you could add Finland to Germany’s Denmark/Norway NO. This would allow the Russians to take IPCs away from the Germans if they choose to fight. You could also allow the Russians to get the 3 IPCs for pro-axis-Finland before at war w/Euro axis. Still not sure if it would be worth it for the Russians to lose units fighting for Finland, but maybe ? Would force the Germans to think about securing the region, or at least counter measures.
As for the middle east I think that the Euro Axis getting up to 6 IPC for the oil NO’s is a good thing, and promotes fighting in that region at times which is good for the game. I feel that the allies should get something for locking down the same territories though besides the printed IPC values (NW Persia, Persia, and Iraq). I know that the allies are much better suited to claim these territories as they did during the war, however what if these same 3 territories gave the allies who control them a 1 IPC bonus each for oil. Something like that could be done for balance instead of a bid for the allies. I realize that Russia gets a 3 IPC bonus for taking Iraq once at war w/Europe, but that NO should be for continental Europe/Finland, not for some Russian excursion into the Middle East, Africa, or island hopping in the Med IMO.
You will also be letting the French ships off the hook in sz93, so you don’t get Italy’s med NO .
In a game w/o bid hitting the Italian BB is pretty risky w/o the carrier. With axis scrambling 3 planes the odds go from about 95% down to around 75% (give or take depending on if the Germans flew in a ftr or tac to scramble).
With the carrier in play the axis probably don’t scramble, but if they do axis should lose some air power which as the UK I’m ok with. If they don’t scramble then I may be able to take out the Italian fleet in one round that will allow some of my ships to survive in 97 (maybe I choose to keep carrier?). The Italians will be hard pressed to clear out both 97 and 93 so they probably don’t get their Med no. Yea I know that the Germans can take out this rag tag fleet on G2, but it will cost them some air.
If you do Taranto w/o carrier (no bid) then you are encouraging the axis to scramble IMO. They have a good shot at mutual annihilation or if the dice gods are slightly on their side the Italian BB may survive. So yep you saved the UK carrier, but is it worth the risk of losing most (or all) RAF and possibly leaving the damaged Italian BB.
IDK though maybe your long term master plan is to get the Euro axis to engage their air forces to win a game of air attrition. Germany/Italy losing air units early on can make for a difficult game on the axis side.
As usual, you give some very helpful comments WILD BILL. Thank you.
I’d say the US ships on the pacific side are all intact, since japan only hit Philippines, Borneo, Hong Kong, and the Battleship. Let’s there was a bid for sub in z98 and some ground troops around Africa. Those are fairly typical.
If I understand correctly, the bombers should be going to Europe and Japan might be getting an easy ride in the Pacific for a while
Thanks Variance, yea I know that many don’t like to go Europe first and that SBR comes with some risks. Just seems that with US buying so many bmrs on the first turn that an econ attack on Germany fits. The range allows you to hit multiple ICs every turn (some may not get protection), and also keeps some of the Euro axis fighters tied down (plus they will probably keep 2 planes on their carrier). I would probably continue to add a US bmr every turn or two so the pressure stays on. At some point you will have to decide to hit the Baltic fleet or just continue to pound the ICs. With 5+ bmrs in Europe I can’t see the Germans risking the Baltic fleet in open waters so you will have to go in and kill it, maybe a double hit with US/UK?
I don’t like letting Japan grow, but when the US is brought in on the first turn I think you have to make the Euro axis pay. You have a pretty good stating fleet in the Pac (unless they also hit Pearl) so you should be able to bounce back mid game and keep Japan from getting (or keeping) the 6th VC. The Anz needs to defend itself and also build some navy to the help the US to come up/over. UK also needs to play well and maybe do some building in the Middle East so it can throw resources where needed. A Japanese attack on India means that the Japanese fleet may be split allowing access to the money islands or an attack of opportunity. Some times it’s better to evac India and save those units for another day?
On turn 1 Germany builds a carrier, bombers or does something that makes you think SEALION
Then Japan declares war and goes moo moo moo all over the pacific
Then USA builds 4 bombers and keeps the original 1 at home (these could reinforce London)
Then turn 2 Germany builds 0 transports
Will the allies survive in the Pacific? What now?
In this scenario the US is in a damned if I do position.
As a US player I would focus on UK not falling and consolidate the US in the Pacific. A couple of AP’s in the Pacific would go a long way to threaten landings in Pacific territories. US must coordinate with the ANZAC for an economy of force.
Primary Objective= UK, London not falling
Secondary Objective= Methodically match Japan so Japan can’t go hog wild (US/ANZAC cooperation) Nice staging area is Hawaiian or preferably Caroline Islands
Remembering what started the conversation, I’m assuming the UK also did a pretty standard defend the home island build on UK1 (but may have smoked the Italian navy). The USA 4 bmr build has pretty much insured that Sea lion is off the table IMO (if it was even on the table to begin with). Sounds like the Germans were doing a Sea lion faint mainly to force the UK to defend their Island Nation (stalling any early builds around Africa/Middle East), and would consider an invasion only if the allies didn’t respond in a responsible way. Given that G2 showed no transport builds the Germans got what they wanted lol.
Now the question is where should the US send those bmrs, and what to build on US2 etc….?
Need to decide which side gets most of the US income (rounds 2-4)
I probably keep those bmrs on the Euro side to take out that shiny new German navy ASAP and start a bombing campaign on Germany to make every unit they build cost more $$$ (including former Russian ICs as they fall). With that said I think that the allies have basically set-up to attack the German economy, so Norway should probably be in their sights too (need to take out the Baltic fleet ASAP). Those same US bmrs can also help tip the scales of a Moscow attack (could also delay an attack for a round or two) and hit the German ICs at the same time. Yea I would probably start building some navy on the Euro side in a coordinated effort w/UK getting on the beaches forcing Germany to deal with lost income and allied landings.
On the Pac side I agree you need to consolidate all Pac resources, and force the Japanese to defend the money islands and Asia proper.
Yep you have some catch up to do on both sides with navy builds. You start with quite a bit on the Pac side though. You need some help from the Anz to add defense to the Pac fleet as you build-up. The Pacific side often ends up in a stalemate once the US gets to even par. The US is generally the wrecking ball, as Anz cleans up or takes some islands etc…but a couple US transports also threaten Japanese holdings.
Kinda need more info, First was there a bid? Did the Japanese include a hit on Pearl Harbor J1? Are those US ships still in play?
I don’t appreciate it when players put their money away where you can’t see it because then you can’t tell when someone has the wrong amount-either by mistake or on purpose.
Great point GHG, and yea that can be a problem. We use paper IPCs for purchases, but we have found that it is best to use a spreadsheet to track income. Right after you add things up and record it on the form, you then check to make sure the next power had the proper starting IPCs (as he should already have his purchases ready to go). It might seem redundant but it saves a lot of headaches, and you can refer to it any time. The paper IPCs are pretty much optional when using a spreadsheet, but we just like placing units on little stacks of money then pointing out that things add up.
Going back to the original post, using poker chips would make it easier to add all the little stacks w/units on top. That sounds like something we would do If it wasn’t for the fact that we use tackle boxes with lids to hold units and paper IPCs (poker chips wouldn’t fit).
For us chips wouldn’t work to good because each power has a plastic case with compartments for units and a lid that latches closed. We put the paper IPCs right in the box so poker style chips wouldn’t fit.
Bob its kinda funny you mention how your group makes purchases by placing the unit on top of the stack of IPCs. I laugh because most of our group does the same thing. With that said you will need lots of singles. I counted up the average incomes for each power and figure you need somewhere around 300+ IPCs to get through a round in G40 so you definitely would need 2 sets from FMG IMO (each set has 200 IPCs).
I would add that although the IPC chip set from FMG looks really nice, I don’t think I would spend over 100.00 for 2 sets. I would just purchase a normal set of poker chips first to see if it works for your group (someone in your group probably has a set that you could try out). I haven’t used poker chips as IPCs but the poker set I own has 4 colors (white, red, blue, black) with 50 of each that would work very well for 1’s, 5’s, 10’s and 20’s (or 25’s). I really don’t think you need the denomination amount printed on the chips, you just need everyone to agree on a standard.