Posts made by WILD BILL

@daniel1980:

I came across the following scenario:

The attacker wants to conduct an amphibious assault on a land zone containing an airbase. He attacks the sea zone with planes only and wants to attack the land zone later using loaded transports and planes only. The defender has one destroyer and one submarine in the contested sea zone and scrambles one fighter.

Question 1) Does the submarine participate to the sea battle (even though it can neither attack nor get attacked)?

1. Yes the sub is part of the naval battle because of the def destroyer and scramble (can’t be ignored)

1a) If there wasn’t a defending destroyer in the sz the attacker could have ignored the sub if he brought in other warships (because you can’t ignore subs when attacking w/tpts only), but if the defender scrambles the ftr then the sub becomes part of the naval battle (can’t be ignored).

Question 2) Is the answer to Q1 still “yes” if no scrambling takes places (only destroyer and submarine defend)?

2. Because you must attack the dd to clear the sz the sub is also part of the battle. It could submerge but that would be unlikely because it can’t be hit, but could kill a transport and the amphib can’t happen if it stays on the surface

Now suppose that all defending units (the destroyer and the fighter) have been destroyed by the attacking planes during the sea battle, only the submarine remains in the sea zone (because it could not get hit by the attacking planes). The defending submarine was NOT submerged by the defending player using the “Submersible” rule form the rulebook (I think it could not anyway since there was no attacking warship in the sea zone, but just to be safe …).

Question 3) Does the surviving submarine block the transports after the sea battle (that means the attacker has to abort the amphibious assault)?

3. Yes the sub not only stops the amphib in this situation, it gets to fire at your transports (defends at “1”). When you attack the sz your transports are part of the sea battle and if the defending sub hits that would be applied to your tpts being the only ships in the battle. You would be able to retreat after the first round of the battle though,

Question 4) Is there any change of the situation if the attacker brings additional cruiser and/or battleships for bombardement?

4. Yes because the sub would probably submerge taking itself out of the battle. If the sub doesn’t submerge your cruiser/battleship could kill it clearing the sz, but those ships wouldn’t be able to bombard because they were part of the sea battle

Many thanks in advance!

Daniel

I think that the Japanese path through China being shorter is because when they were developing the map they expected more Chinese resistance, but then they gave the Japanese over 20 planes (closer to 30 planes in the original).

Part of the problem is that historically there were many natural barriers (mountains and deserts) that aren’t represented in the game. The mountain ranges along the Chinese/Russian border would have made invading Russia through China nearly impossible even if they did roll over the Chinese. Besides being a long and treacherous route, it would have been pretty predictable and easier to defend the mountain passes.

I’m not advocating for an impassible Chinese back door, but I would like to see the impassible Himalayas extended along the Chinese/Kazakhstan border. This would make defending Russia easier IMO forcing the Japanese to go between the new Kaz Mt range and Mongolia. It would also take the Japanese an extra turn to get to Stalingrad too (Kaz is a big territory).  An impassable Ural Mt range has also been discussed for the same purpose (fewer territories to defend along Russia’s back side) .

If you were to introduce more terrain then you could also make some territories mountainous, but passable. Mountain territories could offer better defense (+1 to defending inf?), can’t blitz a Mt territory and mech/tanks can’t NCM 2 spaces through a mountain territory etc…some of the Russian Pac territories could be mountainous to slow down a Japanese mechanized force, or set up Russian inf to defend better.

Wow this thread was cool to revive. Haven’t heard from many of those guys much as of late, but they have some great insight for the allies.

Garg’s point was for the allies to win, they first must not loose. Keeping in mind that Cow was part of the conversation, and is one of the best Japanese players (that thrives on early Japanese attacks). Garg’s point of stacking Anz early and def Hawaii so the Japanese can’t steal a win on the Pac side is directly linked to very good Japanese play. It is also noted that the Anz needs to build some navy and air to help the US, but their main goal is to not loose Sidney.

There is also some good advice about how to use Egypt to supply air to Moscow to prop it up (building an IC & AB as early as plausible), while also building up Egypt to be a last resort defensive stand if Moscow falls. I also like that Q mentioned evacuating India as an option to turtlng and losing all your units. I have evacuated India in the past and traded it to stall the Japanese (they can’t land air on it, so it could be a good chance to kill Japanese ground units). This is a little painful because of the stupid capture capital/plunder rule that should be a one time only IMO (house rule). Those India units can really help in Egypt or Russia if they are alive, and is doable if the Anz and Hawaii aren’t weak, or are shielded. Plus once the Japanese take India they need to decide if they immediately head to the 6th VC for the win (Sidney or Hawaii), or possibly make a move on the Mid East, Egypt, Africa, or north to Russia (maybe linking up with more Japanese units pounding through China).

Another thing to think about while redistributing the territory values is to make the VC worth more. You could strike a good balance, and eliminate some of the NO’s that are awarded for taking them. Add 2-3 IPCs to each VC and you probably don’t need to list half of the German and Japanese NO’s.

CWO Marc, I see that you have put a lot of thought into this, couple of things though.

I really like that you made some of the far east Russian territories 0 IPCs to deter the Japanese, but I agree with GeneralHandGrenade that you may find the Germans benefiting from it and causing some trouble. I would concentrate on increasing Moscow, and maybe other VC, and Caucasus. If you increase Moscow then the Germans don’t get more until they sack it. You could increase Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Caucasus and reduce the NO’s to offset it. I wouldn’t raise any of the other 2 IPC Russian territories because the Germans are already concentrating on the southern route (both Ukraine territories, and Ros). Plus I believe you are going to hear from those that wanted a 2 ipc territory somewhere east of Moscow to supply units to that front if needed, or to represent Russian production moving away from the German lines.

On a side note:
I think it would be cool if the Russians could split their Major IC in Moscow into 3 Minor ICs when the Germans get with in 2 territories of the Russian capital. One minor must stay in Moscow (and can be used), but the other 2 minors can move to a territory north or east of Moscow (maybe choose between Novo, Urals, Yak, or Bury?). The Russians keep fighting until all their ICs are captured. This would take the 10 production of the major and split it to 3 minors keeping production at 9 units.

Making all of China worthless to Japan is also going to be a hard sell IMO (personally I’m not too crazy about it either). Some peaple even give the Japanese a 5 IPC NO to conquer all of China. I think there could be some Chinese (and Russian) territories with a dual IPC value, but not all of them (maybe 5 territories on the back side?). I have also heard some say that one of the Russian territories east of Moscow should have a dual IPC value w/IC for the Russians to use, but if taken it becomes a 1 or 0 IPC territory and the IC is removed.

I 100% agree with your Pac Islands evaluation. I have an Island NO for both the US and Japan if they hold 5/7 of the islands you listed (3 US & 4 Japanese). I agree that you could make all those 1 IPCs, but I also think that a better NO could also do it for those mid Pac islands. I feel that the existing Anz NO puts value to the 3 Anz territories that you posted. If you did bump the 3 the Anz territories I think you would also need to adjust that NO. Iwo and Okinawa were very strategic, so yea they could go up because the US passes them by often times.

ALLIES:
United States
  Guam        
  Midway      
  Wake Island  
ANZAC
  New Britain  
  New Guinea  
  Solomon Islands
AXIS:
Japan
  Caroline Islands  
  Marianas
  Marshall Islands
  Paulau Island

Welcome to the axis and allies world. If your girlfriend won’t let you open the games till X-mas, maybe she will allow you to pull the rules out of each set (and the maps would also be helpful if you can pull it off). I also suggest you checkout Young Grasshopper’s Beginners Guide (see link below). Even if you can’t open your games Young Grasshopper has links to the Avalon Hills site so you can download the rules. It also has links to the set-ups, and FAQ (changes or clarifications to the rules). This won’t be a quick easy read if you have never played axis and allies before. I would also suggest that you watch as many of Young Grasshopper’s U-tube videos as you can to get up to speed. He has done a terrific job introducing new players to Axis & Allies (not knowing if you speak English, but his video’s are awesome).

This is a pretty big map when combined for the global game, about 82 cm X 178 cm (32 inches X 70 inches). You will also need a little extra room around the map for unit trays etc…. so you may want to prepare something/somewhere ahead of time to play it. You may even consider setting up the whole global game to get the feel for it, but only play the Euro side the first time to get familiar with the rules and movement etc…The Pac side has more political rules to deal with (unless Japan attacks on the first turn) and much more navy and sea zones which can get overwhelming.

Young Grasshopper’s Beginners Guide link:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34418.0

Avalon Hill website link for rules (can also get here through YG’s Beginners Guide above)
http://avalonhill.wizards.com/rules

Units and chips (may need more chips):

US and UK units come in both games, so being you have Europe40 and Pacific40 you can combine the units for these powers. This should give you enough units for the most part to play the individual games, or the global version. Chips are used when you have more then just a couple of the same type of unit in one territory (gray-1 unit, green-3 units, red-5 units). You will use chips when setting up the game, or when you merge stacks into a single territory to save space. You may need to swap some units on the map for chips when you want to buy a unit and don’t have that type in your supply box too.

Example, when setting-up the territory Germany it starts with 11 infantry. You wouldn’t use 11 inf because it takes up to much room, and you will run out of inf very fast. You use chips, could use 1 red chip (5), 5 gray chips (5), and one inf (1) on the top of the chips to represent 11 inf (could also just use 2 red chips and 1 inf on top for the same thing). The green chips are relativity new to me because they didn’t come in the original version (or earlier AA games). Being that I have plenty of chips from other versions I don’t feel the need to use them, but you will most likely have to at some point, unless you buy more chips from HBG. You can also use coins as some have posted if you run out of chips. Most people don’t like to use chips for planes, ships/transports, but you do what you have to.

Edit unit and chip trays:
I believe that the game still comes with trays for each power to hold the units, but I don’t think it is compartmentalized (the original version wasn’t). If I was to purchase or make something this is the one thing I would concentrate on. Keeping all the individual units separate is a big plus when playing. You can make cardboard inserts for the cardboard trays the game comes with, or buy plastic containers with dividers. I found plastic containers (with a hinged lid) in the sporting goods section of a local department store (Walmart I think). They are about 10 cm X 20 cm (4 inches X 8 inches), and have up to 12 compartments, but you can pull some of the dividers to form larger compartment’s (for inf and capital ships).

Dice:
Dice are awesome, they can kinda take on their own personalities. I have many AA games, and have also purchased a couple sets of combat dice from FMG that are power specific (you can see the German set in the advertisement in the side bar if you scroll to the top of this page). Most of us probably have a favorite set of dice, or use different dice for different situations. It’s part of the whole trash talking AA experience (“don’t touch my dice…”). I would suggest having more dice because it will make the bigger battles go faster (even borrowing dice from other games you may have).   Having a dice tray, or somewhere to roll the dice (box top) is important so that your dice don’t go crashing through the board, and mess things up.

Roundels, air/naval bases (AB/NB), and industrial complexes (IC’s):
I always seem to need more Japanese markers, but I would play the game a few times before looking to buy more units or roundels (you can always draw something up, or substitute if you need to). The cardboard AB/NB and ICs are ok, but you may choose to upgrade them later. I have the plastic IC’s from other AA games and use those for major ICs, but still use the cardboard minor IC, and AB/NB. You can buy this stuff from HBG, or FMG, but it might be quicker and more cost effective to just go out and buy the 1942 2nd edition. It has 5 of the major powers (no Italy, Anzac, or China), nearly all the units for each power, and it has more dice, chips, and cardboard ICs. Plus it is a good stand alone game as well that has similar rules (helpful to break it out and play when introducing new players to the game).

No paper currency:
Yep, this is regrettable in my opinion. I have Industrial Production Certificates (IPC’s) from other games I own, and some War Bucks from HBG too. I haven’t used poker chips, but I hear that is a good way to go as well.  I’m old school and like to gather my income in IPC’s and place it with that power. When I purchase units I will put the IPCs with those units as I go keeping track of what I’ve spent along the way. Like if Russia is buying 5 inf (3 IPCs each costing 15 IPCs), I will place those 5 inf on top of 15 IPCs etc…We don’t like to use the income tracker w/roundels because it is easy to forget to adjust it, or roundels get moved around (by accident of coarse  :wink: ).

With that said, we also print off a computer generated spreadsheet with all powers on it to track incomes after each turn (it is two sided and has 5 complete rounds of play on each side). This may seem redundant, but the spreadsheet is very helpful to keep things straight. It has the starting income for each power and allows for increases or decreases to income, records if that power saved any income from last turn, or was convoyed etc…We also refer to it at the beginning of each players turn just to make sure he has the correct starting income (IPCs in hand). We have found that sometimes just using paper IPC’s and/or the games income tracker that you can easily forget to add or subtract income etc… Using a spreadsheet may add a bit of time, but seems to help keep arguments to a minimum because you can see that he saved 5 IPCs the last turn and that’s why he can afford to buy what he did. It also helps you to remember about convoy’s, because convoy damage is on the sheet (I realize you probably don’t know what convoy damage is, but once you do, you will probably forget to do it  :-D ).

After some reading I found that the Copenhagen Convention of 1857 named the Danish Straights an International Waterway free to all military and commercial shipping. This is not the case for the Turkish Straights which were directly controlled by Turkey.

In light of that I have changed my stance and believe that while Denmark is neutral (doesn’t matter if pro axis/allies as far as game terms) warships from either side should be able to pass through the straight until the Germans (or allies) take it. Once Denmark is activated then passage of the straight is controlled by that power.

Also found that Churchill had a plan (Operation Catherine) to put a large surface fleet into the Baltic in the spring of 1940 to disrupt trade between Germany, Russia, Sweden (iron ore) etc…but the plan was shelved.

Hitler invaded Denmark and Norway for control of this waterway to keep the allies out of the Baltic, and gain bases along the Norwegian coastline. This would insure trade, and better access to the North Sea (sub warfare and merchant raiding).

Most games I also see the Germans try to keep the BB alive, and add something to the navy (dd/cv/tpt). IMO you have to project some kind of early threat to both the UK and Russia, be able to use the fleet as a threat to strike the allied fleet (w/air power), and the most important is to have the ability to defend/counter attack Norway/Finland (income swing, and very strategic). If the Allies go north to Iceland at least I know Italy (and possibly North Africa) is safer, and I can set-up proper blocks/defenses (which includes attack and counter attack abilities). In this game it is generally easier and less painful for the Germans to allow an allied landing and  kill it right after, then it is to attempt to take out a strong Allied combo fleet. So if the allies go the northern route they will need a strong navy (can take a hit and survive), and figure out a way to first take out the German Baltic fleet to make any landings stick.

If the Allies are perched at Gib sz91, it gives them several options if they have the numbers (doubtful in the early game). The Germans could attack the Gib fleet, but that would most likely be very costly to the German navy/air force. However it could be worth it if the Allies come over to soon and don’t have enough (could include some help from the Italians to clear landing spots, or double hit). The allies could also have blocked out sz110 so the German fleet can’t hit Gib sz91 (maybe Italy can help with that, maybe not). Not knowing the Allied plan the Axis will probably block out some of the Allied options. The Germans won’t give the Allies free access to Norway unless they know they can remove the landing force immediately after (which would probably include UK land/air units). Typically the Germans would place a blocker in sz110 (move or purchase a dd/ca) so the Allies can’t reach Norway. This forces a delay, and might give the Germans a round to set-up more defenses and/or counter strikes if the Allied do indeed go north, but that also means spending less income on the Russian front. It also allows the allies to move to England so the UK can drop a carrier etc…then the cat and mouse fun begins.

I would think that a 1939 start date where Denmark is neutral (pro allies) the Germans or the allies wouldn’t be allowed to move any ships through the Danish straight (no belligerents). I think you would treat it like the Turkish Straights, and while Turkey is neutral neither side can move ships though it. Same for the Panama canal, while the US is neutral I don’t think anyone but the US is allowed to pass.

Actually you could make the case that the Germans would be able to move freely if Denmark was neutral or allied because of the Kiel Canal (another thing that YoungGrasshooper could do in his map re-make)

Edit: I have changed my stance on this because the Danish straights were international waters allowing both sides passage (see later)

@taamvan:

There was a discussion last year about this, and the consensus seemed to be that if you upped the scramblers to 2 to hit, that SBR became unviable.   The dynamic the way it works now is punishing to the defender (though the damage can be avoided/reduced by using certain tactics), but its also potentially costly to the attacker–and if you make the defense stronger, it isn’t really justifiable for the big standoffs (over West Germany/Japan/UK/Moscow typically)

Jon’s Mod:

Strat Bomber 13
Cruiser 11
SBR bonus dice reduced to +1
Free French added to the game instead of bid.

I agree that if interceptors fired at 2 SBR would suffer, but risking your fighters to def at 1 is pretty lame IMO. Plus bmrs and ftrs firing at the same value in the dog fight just seems wrong to me.

I have heard the case for allowing interceptors to fire at 2 or less in the dog fight, but taming it a bit.

Roll 1 kill a plane (still attackers choice)
Roll 2 and a bmr has to abort (took damage and had to turn back)

That way the interceptors can do a better job def w/o more risk to the attacking bmrs

I agree that the Russian far east needs some help with logistics. I don’t think giving them a 2 IPC territory for production out there will solve this though. I think it will create another problem for Russia giving the Japanese yet another place to mobilize units.

If there was a Siberian Rail though the Russians could build units in Moscow and rail them to the far east, or move the Siberians to Moscow when needed. If you don’t want to install a rail system, maybe simply allowing mech to drag one inf, art, or AA gun in NCM could solve some of the logistic problems for Russia (and other parts of the map). If you also tweaked the ridiculous 18 inf by swapping out a few inf for a couple mech and art that also helps (especially if you did allow mech to drag other units in NCM). I know any type of rail movement would help the axis, but no rail at all is pretty lame.

I don’t think making one of the territories out there impassable so the Japanese can’t go north is the way to go. Plus they could bypass it and go through Mongolia (if the Japanese go north the Mongols will activate). Although an impassible Ural mountain range that would protect Moscow’s back side and funnel the Japanese into a kill zone would be pretty cool.

You bring up good points about the Pac islands, but it would be the same if you made them all 1 IPC. Most of the 0 IPC islands belong to the allies (they would get a pretty good income boost). As Japan you either try to hold the islands you have and take some from the allies, but at some point you will be faced with giving up that fight (big win for the allies IMO).

@CWO:

I’m wondering: what if Russia was given some sort of incentive – perhaps raised IPCs, perhaps a NO bonus, perhaps something else – to set up an anti-Japanese defensive line east of Moscow?  On the game map, the most logical defensive line would be the one consisting of just three territories: Urals, Novosibirsk and Kazakhstan.  As long as the Soviets hold that line, Japan could run wild in eastern Russia without Moscow having to worry.  And it makes geographic sense because the Urals are the traditional dividing barrier between the European and Asian parts of the country.

I agree that Russia should get something if the Japanese come a calling. They don’t even have enough to hold back a determined German assault, much less both powers converging on them. You could even make it a 2nd lend lease NO that allows Russia to get 5 IPCs if the Japanese take a Russian territory, or have units in a Russian territory.

The Russians wouldn’t get the NO for simply being at war with the Japanese. Only if the Japanese take a  Russian territory. This would allow the Russians to invade Japanese land, and the Japanese to take it back w/o triggering the NO. But if the Japanese take it further and invade Russian territory (or start the hostilities by attacking a Russian territory) the allies send more war materials. You could even link it to Amur/sz5, or Persia/sz80 must be clear for the Russians to get the NO.

I think you need incentive to bring the Pac islands into the game, but I think you can do it w/o making them all 1 IPCs. I think NO’s can do it, but the current NO’s fall short.

The Japan perimeter NO is a joke, and I’ve only seen them get it once in a game (US went 90% Europe). There is no island hopping or fighting over islands in the Pac because there is no incentive, but there was a while back with the 5/7 island NO from the past.

I have been experimenting with additional NO’s in the Pac for both the Japanese and US, UK/Anz.

For the DEI I think that the high IPC value is representing the resources (oil), but you should get a bonus if you hold them all, and can show that you are able to ship the resources from them (no enemy ships in the four island convoy sz’s).

My DEI NO for Japan is only 4 IPCs, and there can be no allied warships in any of the DEI sz’s. I also give the UK Pac and Anz 2 IPCs each if the allies hold the DEI, and their power either has a control marker or unit on one of the Islands, plus there are no Japanese warships in any of the DEI sz’s.

The NO I have been experimenting with and I like the most is a mid Pac Islands that both the US and Japan can get. I have 7 islands in play, and you need 5 of then to get 3 IPCs. 4 are Japanese (Caroline, Marshal, Marinas, Paulau), and 3 US (Midway, Wake, and Guam). So the Japanese can easily get this NO if they take one of the US islands (also get an airbase), and the US is forced to retake them just to keep the Japanese from getting the extra bonus, or can also take several of them to increase their own income.

I’m also looking at a 3 IPC NO if the Japanese get just 3/6 SE Pac islands (New Brit, Solomon, New Hebrides, Gilbert, Fiji, Samoa).

As for the Russian far east territories being worth more, I think you will just be giving the Japanese more incentive to take them. I don’t see the Russian putting up much more of a fight to keep them, and if they do Moscow will fall easier. If you do make Bury and/or Novo a 2 IPC territory you would need to off set that by making a couple territories out there 0 IPCs IMO. But honestly I see this as a win fall for Japan. If they get both Stalingrad (comes with IC) and Novo (may come w/IC, or can build an IC) the Russians are in bigger trouble then they are now.

I think you would be better off with a Russian rail running from Moscow to Bury to allow the Russians some limited rail movement between them (both ways), but only works for the Russians. Either that or change the rules for a minor IC when it isn’t the original owner (captured, liberated, or newly built) to where it only produces 1 unit. This would fix a lot of things IMO!

I know some players use a house rule (balance mode) where ftrs roll 2 or less in the dog fight (both interceptors and escorts), and attacking tacs and bmrs still roll at 1 in the dog fight. I don’t know if this is helping the SBR situation that some have posted as I’m just getting my feet wet with ftrs rolling at 2 or less for both sides in SBR (seems like the attacker could still over power the defender with a lot of aircraft).

There was a time when the dog fight was 2 steps (alpha+2). Escorts (attacking ftrs) roiled at 1, and any hits were applied to interceptors (def ftrs) and they were immediately removed from play (didn’t get to fire). Then all attacking bmrs (strat and tacs) rolled at 1, and surviving interceptors rolled at 2 or less in the dog fight. Hits were then applied to both sides, but interceptor hits had to be applied to bmrs first (either strats or tacs), then to escorts if there were no bmrs left. Alpha+3 had a similar thing in the beginning where all attacking planes rolled at 1, hits then applied to interceptors that were immediately removed, then surviving interceptors fired at 2 or less and hits applied (attackers choice for casualties between bmrs and escort ftrs). I think it was to easy to keep interceptors grounded though, because with many air units attacking, the interceptors very well may not get a shot off. Plus if they had escorts you probably wouldn’t get to kill any bmrs if your interceptors did fire (because hits would be applied to escorts not bmrs).

This was to simulate escorts defending their bmrs, and interceptors going straight for the attacking bmrs. Maybe there could be a one round dog fight as in balance mode (all ftrs roll at 2 or less), but any interceptor hits go to the attacking bmrs first. That way the defender has a chance to reduce the damage done if he puts interceptors in the air. Could also keep all ftrs rolling at 2 or less in the dog fight, but interceptors that roll “1” hit bmrs.

I have also been looking at reducing strats in normal battles (don’t like the flying one hit battleships). I have played around with bmrs attacking at 3 or less, but it still seemed a bit much. Now I’m doing bmrs attack at 2 or less, but get two dice when attacking ground units (carpet bombing). I have also allowed strats to drop para/special forces units (one per bmr), and still get one dice at 2 or less in a ground battle (strat and cargo subject to AA). This seems to be working, and I’m also thinking about bmrs being able to move one inf or special forces unit in NCM (as long neither was used in combat). Really just trying to lower strats in combat, but give them more choices to keep the cost the same.

As for AA guns, I also think they should be able to fire more than just in the opening round. I don’t like how they get their shot off, then are taken as the first casualty because they have no further use in most cases. I’ve been playing with each AA fire 2 shots in the opening round (max to how many attacking air units), and continue to fire 1 shot every round after (again maxed to how many attacking air units). They can be taken as a casualty at any time (pretty much keep them if enemy has air units). Maybe allow them to fire w/o regard to how many attacking air units would be better. If you have 3 AA guns, you fire 6 shots in the opening round even if they only have a couple planes.

I agree that it would be cool to be able to take this map back to 1939, and have another set-up. Would caution going back any further though. Reconfiguration of some of the territories and borders would be a pretty big job, but well worth it IMO. It would be pretty cool to split up S Germany and Slav/Hung so you get Austria, Czech, Hung etc….I would also like an E Prussia please, and fix some stuff like Greece touching the Black Sea etc… Also what others posted about the Italian/German border (have the new Austria/Switz between them). Might even look at creating a French buffer territory (Lorraine?) between W Germany and France (Paris), and have Italy only border S France (not France).

The easiest way to handle all these new neutral territories are to simply give them a pro axis or pro allied stance, with standing armies silhouetted (2-3 inf) just like it is done now. Hol/Belg, Denmark, Norway were all invaded so they become pro allied and get 2-3 inf to defend. Make sure that the Germans are se-up to take them by force in a 1939 set-up. Territories like Austria, Czech, Hung, Romania, and Bulgaria become pro-axis and their standing armies are integrated into the German army (just like Bulgaria…).

You could go a couple ways for the territories that would be neutral in 1939, but fully integrated into a major power for the primary 1940 set-up as far as color scheme.

I agree it would be ok to shade them towards the power they will be integrated into for the 1940 set-up (sphere of influence). This would make it easier to set-up 1940, and count the income. Could have a darker color for territories of the main powers showing their 1939 stance, and have a lighter shade of that color for the territories that will be in that powers camp for a 1940 start date or shortly after (either by annex, or by force). Like Germany, W Germany, and S Germany are dark gray, but Hol/Belg, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Poland, Yugo, Slav/Hung, Romania, Bulgaria are a lighter shade of gray. Russian territories are a dark maroon, and Bessarabia, E Poland, and Baltic States are a lighter shade distinctive to Russia……maybe even make Vyborg, and NW Persia shaded to Russia. The only problem with that is it does make it per-determined and cuts Italy out of the neutrals other then Albania, but with a 1939 start date they would also be neutral, and would the Germans really allow them to gain Romania or Bulgaria?

If you use one color for all neutrals I would still keep the diagonal lines that depict pro axis, pro allied, and straight lines to show true neutrals but probably make them a little darker (would keep the lines for either theme). Using nation specific roundels for each of these neutrals would be cool for house rules that link the parent country to their colonies, but it could also clutter the map. You could even boost the standing armies for the true neutrals to allow them to be invaded breaking the true neutral band of brothers thing we have now.

One other thing, if you are going to change some of the IPC values I would probably do a re-set for the Russians. Make Moscow worth more (3 IPCs really?) and some of the far east 0 IPCs so the Japanese don’t get much value. I think you can consider a 2 IPC territory out east, but I would be careful not to make it a target for Japan to take or build an IC. I would also make some of the oil rich territories worth more and remove some of the NO’s for taking them. Maybe boost Romania, Caucasus and the Mid East territories (why would Persia be more valuable to Germany or Italy then for the UK?). Same with the DEI, both sides would benefit from the oil (Celb had no oil and should be lower according to Imp Leader). You could make an NO for holding a region w/resources showing that you can actually ship the resources (convoy routes, or links back to an IC).

Like I posted before I would like to see more convoy “routes” that the allies need to protect. At the minimum add a couple sz in the mid Atlantic between Canada and England that have a UK marker and raiding capacity stamped right in the sz. That way German subs could be spread out and make an impact especially early in the game.

It is kinda like that strat you re-posted a while back where the US builds a lot of subs to force the Japanese to build destroyers or get convoyed. The Germans were the best at sub warfare, but G40 missed the boat on this IMO (pun intended)

Thanks for your response,

As for units and IPCs being sent, both have value, and I want to be able to send everything rolled. Units can participate right away from Archangel in combat. If it is cash it goes to the Russian bank at the beginning of Russia’s turn (can be used to purchase units that turn). So with the cash it would take a bit longer for units to get into action, but the Russians might need the units in Moscow or Ukraine (not in Arch). I think of it like they rail the lend lease to these areas rather then buying units.

The dice thing is pretty cool, and it can add quite a bit to the Russian’s income (could just be the gambler in me though, I love the dice LOL). I think of it like the NO for 5 IPC which is like free money to the Russians. It just makes the allies pay some for the Russians to get some, but it could go the other way and the allies don’t benefit all that much. If you roll high its like winning the lottery, if you roll low then well at least they got something. Say you paid for 2 dice (4 IPCs) and got a 4, and 5 (9 IPCs). That is a pretty good roll, but it is really the same as giving them a net of a 5 IPC NO as far as the allies big picture goes. Of coarse it can be repeated in one round of play because both the US and UK can do it, but it does cost them each something.

My over all thing is to possibly ban the West from putting units into Russia (other then lend lease), so it needs to allow the Russians to stand on their own, but cost the allies some to do it. An even trade+2 IPC wouldn’t do that IMO, it would just make the western allies weaker so they might not voluntarily do it at all. It needs to have some risk, but good reward IMO (dice can do that).

@Bravehart:

Think be a good place to add a Transport Rule Question… ( good thread here though ).

Rules say on pg *32 of Pacific 2nd Edition:
Carry Land Units: A transport can carry land units belonging to you or to friendly powers (provided both powers are at war).

So if you are not at war yet, can you transport your own units? I assume yes you can.
Bravehart

Not sure which power you are talking about, but to clarify the UK Pac and Anz are not neutral, they start at war with the Euro axis so they don’t have any movement restrictions on either map (they don’t have to be at war w/Japan).

While neutral the US and Russia can’t be on any territories that don’t belong to them, nor can other powers place units on US or Russia territories while they are neutral.

Russia doesn’t start with any transports, but could load and move them if they did on both maps while neutral.

The US can load and move their own transports on both maps while neutral, but have some restrictions. On the Euro map all US ships must end movement next to a US territory (war ships can go out to sz 102, but transports can’t). On the Pac side the US has more freedom of movement, but their ships can not end movement next to a Japanese territory.

BTW Japan isn’t allowed to have ships with in 2 szs of Western US, or Alaska while the US is neutral.

I would like for the US and UK to be able to send lend lease (LL) to Russia, and the US to also be able to lend lease to the UK. With that in mind I’m sticking to the Euro side (but you could expand). My intention is to replace the existing Russian lend lease NO, and allow the Western Allies to give Russia IPCs and units. I’m not sure if it would keep UK ftrs out of Moscow but you could install a 3 IPC NO strictly for no western allied units in Russia to help with that as well (maybe 5 IPCs if needed).

Here’s my thoughts:
Sending nation doesn’t have to be at war, but receiving nation needs to be at war with one of the Euro axis powers (either Germany or Italy). Lend lease can be units, IPCs, or combination of both. Certain conditions need to be met for the nation to get the lend lease, and there is designated territories where the LL shows up (see later).

As the sending nations the US and UK can buy lend lease dice for 2 IPCs each during their purchase units phase (paid to the bank). US can buy up to 3 LL dice, but can only allocate 2 LL dice to any one nation (either UK or Russia), and UK can buy up to 2 LL dice (for Russia). You then roll the dice to determine the amount of lend lease that each nation will receive from the bank (sum of dice that was allocated to that power). The sending nation will ship the lend lease immediately, but it doesn’t arrive until the receiving nations turn (considered at sea and held out of play). At the beginning of the receiving nations turn if the following conditions are met the lend lease will arrive.

For the UK, there can be no German subs/war ships in the Atlantic (excluding sz112), and LL is received in United Kingdom (London). For Russia there can be no axis war ships in sz125, and LL is received at Archangel (must obviously be controlled by Russia).

Using the US for an example they buy 1 LL dice for 2 IPCs (pay bank). They roll a 5, so that is what Russia will get in units/IPCs through LL (the bank pays this not sending power just like it was an NO). If you rolled a “1” then Russia gets 1 IPC (guess the rest is considered lost at sea lol). For the 5 IPCs in LL the US decides to send an art (use Russian art) plus the extra 1 IPC (for a total of 5 IPCs LL). Again the LL is considered at sea until Russia’s turn (held out of play). In the beginning of Russia’s turn if there are no German war ships in sz125 the new Russian art is placed on Arch, and the 1 IPC is added to Russia’s bank. The art can move during Russia’s combat move phase, so it is probably better to send units if you can, otherwise it takes a while for the Russians to buy units and get them placed.

If sz125 is not clear, or Arch is taken then LL continues to be held out of play and you can attempt to deliver LL on Russia’s next turn. You could also re-appropriate it and send it to the UK next turn (swap Russia art for UK). However the nation that was unable to deliver LL can’t send more LL until it is delivered. If LL can’t be deliver after 2 attempts it is lost.

If you rolled 2 dice for LL to Russia (paid 4 IPCs) and ended up with a sum of 10, you could ship a ftr or a mech & tank etc…of coarse you could get screwed and roll snake eyes.

To make it more interesting you could add in other lend lease routes to Russia with similar conditions. Like through Persia (sz80) or Amur (sz5) so you have other ways to get LL to Russia if the northern route is cut off.

Could also lay out actual lend lease routes from US to UK/Russia, and from UK to Russia for the allies to keep clear of axis war ships. If not not clear can’t use that route, or allow enemy ships to attack lend lease because it would have to pass through a hostile sz.

@SS:

Well you could add any defenders killed by Battleships and Cruisers get no return fire or a defense roll.

Ya that’s how it was before AA50 (Anniversary edition) but it was nerfed to what we have today because it made Amphibs easier (the opposite of what we are trying to do here). IDK, I’m just thinking of islands with one inf that would be removed by ships w/o any risk to amphib units (unless there was an art def because the bombardment and art kill shot would be fired in the same step so both could hit).