Posts made by WILD BILL

I like the preempt (deadly shot) for jet ftrs on attack or def (w/o modifying their values). It shows they were faster, and wouldn’t get hit if they destroyed the enemy first. It might be reserved for ftrs only. It could also work for SBR on either side, who ever has JF would fire their one deadly shot before the dog fight, and the enemy doesn’t fire back if hit. The only problem would be if both sides have JF in a SBR, then it would cancel each other out as they would fire simultaneously. The other thing to consider in a normal battle is that if a JF deadly shot took out the ftr or tank that a tac was paired with it wouldn’t get its 4. I agree that raising the attack of ftrs to a 4 would undermine the use of the tac, and 5’s would be crazy.

The only other thing that might make sense is to allow JF to target their prey if they hit, instead of preempt shot.

I like that you didn’t nerf the HB in SBR. That way at least the reward might out weigh the risk.

I agree that at the start of the game Germany/Italy will be at war with UK/France. (Italy declared war on UK & F June 10th 1940). I can’t see a formal Dec Of War between Germany/Russia ahead of time giving the other a warning. There shouldn’t be any permanent boost to either economy. I think there will be NO’s based on conquest in each others realms that could be rather large. There could also be an extra one time bonus to entice an invasion. I think Russia will be able to attack at will any neutral tt (pro whatever-could have consequences) from the beginning. I don’t believe The Soviets will be able to enter any allied controlled tt (or vise versa) until it is officially at war with the axis (kinda like the US). To be officially at war w/axis Russia would just simply need to attack any axis controlled tt or a pro axis neutral w/o restraints I would think. Germany/Italy could also declare war by invading any Russian controlled tt at any time. I don’t think Germany or Russia will have much as far as real attack forces in eastern Europe at the start. Maybe enough to gobble up a few neuts that are between them. They’ll need at least one turn just to buy and reposition their troops to mount any real attack.

I hope there is a tech for AB or NB, there’s a lot you could do there. Allow ports to have some type of reverse naval bombardment. Air strips could allow scramble to adjacent sz even when not on an island.

Advanced art could give your inf +1 on def (like it does for attack). Maybe only against an ampib assault.

Adv art could allow you to fire your two preempt (no return fire) or into adjacent tt.

I think the above works well for the land territories. The sea (ships) might need some more consideration if you don’t use any type of ships in port rules. After say France falls I think the loyalty of the fleet should be decided. Maybe something as simple as a dice roll for each ship, or maybe roll for all ships in a sea sz together. Say roll 1-2 Free French, 3-4 Vichy, 5-6 scuttled, or some variation there of. Then the battles would start as the players take their turns. They could fight or retreat.

I would think who ever took Paris (Germany or Italy) would get control of Vichy ships. Just replace them with G/I boats, because they would not ever give them back.  The axis should be able to move them. Maybe I’m off base here, but w/o an in port rule, you couldn’t just force them to stay put as you do with ground units. I know that the French scuttled much of their fleet a year after the fall of Paris to keep it out of German hands. I just think that the possibility of some going to the axis existed so should be represented.

As for the Free French ships, you could still allow the French player to control them on their turn, or allow the UK to have temporary control, and blue ships would be considered UK in every way and be moved along with UK ships. If Paris is liberated then any surviving blue ships  would be returned to France. I like giving temp control to UK.

I don’t think you would use this rule for all other powers, just France and maybe Italy. I don’t think the loyalties would be in question for the other powers.

You could just leave well enough alone and simply have the entire fleet fight on as we do now. F & I Ships would not change sides, but that’s boring. I want to see the French fleet in turmoil with the chance for the allies to take it out.

@Bravehart:

I have a question which could happen…( kinda going off topic with DEI…but still politics…! ). If Japan somehow manages to take San Fran on US Western State, the US doesn’t had over the money to Japan ( unlike previous AA games ) correct…?
so what would the IPC value be for Japan at the collect income stage…10 or 50?
BH

@Krieghund:

The additional 40 income is a US NO, so Japan would not get it.

I think there were 2 questions here.

1. Yes japan would only get the 10 IPC ,not the 50 (Krieg)
2. Yes Japan would get any stored IPC that the US had as W. US is considered a capital in AA40P. So is India(UK), and N S Wales (Anz) for game purposes. Pg# 18 capturing/lib Capitals.

You should build your minor IC on French Indo China (FIC) rd #2 (must invade rd #1) or Kwangtung. I like FIC better because you can do that w/o going to war w/UK yet, and it is only two moves from Burma instead of 3 (Kwang). Both will allow you to build 3 units. By the way both of those tt have an island in the adjacent sz that you can put an air base (AB) on latter. The IC on say FIC would allow you to build ships while the island AB would allow your air units to scramble protecting the Japanese navy if you get in trouble later.

Use your air power. You can take out an entire hoard of Chinese inf and flying tiger with only 4-5 ground units, as long as you have 8-10 air units. Those 4’s (tac bmr) come in handy when paired w/ftrs. Use the new IC on FIC to pump out more ground units for India. You don’t necessarily need tanks early to take out India, (because of air power) but should build a few the round before you assault say Burma so they can catch up or for a back up plan in case dice treat you bad.

The last game I was more patient playing Japan (waited till 3rd rd to attack). It seemed to allow me to take them on one on one, concentrating my attacks better. Of course its always nice if UK attacks you first or enters China (could happen if you wait). You also need to keep a large force (navy) in the Caroline Islands to keep the US and Anz guessing. Its kinda fun watching the US squirm (well until their bigger then you anyway). Make sure if you attack say Anz from the Caroline that your not out of position to fend off the US. The one thing that is key is your air power and timing. Try to take down China ,then UK. After that you will need your air to def/attack the USA. You better not loose your planes in Asia, and turn them towards the USA asap. You should also buy transports early on, and then build more war ships. You can never have enough of either. I also like to replace planes if I loose them along the way.

Little tidbit: If you can get your air/ground stationed in Burma for a final assault on India, you can land those surviving air units on FIC. If you build an AB on FIC that same round, it would allow you to fly those surviving air units to either Caroline or Japan on your next turn. That will send the US running the other way. I did this in one game (mostly by chance) and it was cool.

I like the concept of rail movement in AA. With that said I think there should be some limits. I wouldn’t want you to be able to move your entire German army (say 15 inf/10 tanks) from the Russian front to the French coast 6-7 tt away or vice versa. There would need to be some internal mechanism worked out for limits. As Flash said all ground movement would need to be modified (see note below).

Note: The above would make all ground units 1 move units (in combat). Your 2 move units could now be used to blitz into a 2nd battle, or retreat from the front lines. Tanks could still blitz through un-occupied enemy tt using its 2nd move (could toss in they only get their 2nd movement if they kill the enemy in one round of battle).

Expanding on mavericks idea:
Allow all 2 IPC tt (or more) to have limited rail movement in noncombat (would not need card board chit). This is a good place to start as 2 IPC shows some infrastructure as it is also needed to build an IC. Any ground unit starting in such a tt (2 IPC or better) gives all your (or your allies) ground units there 2 moves in non combat only. If your ground units start at an IC then they would get +1 for movement (3) still only in non combat. You could extend the +1 to any AB or NB assuming there would be better transportation near them as well. You could also allow for SBR to damage/limit rail capacity, even on tt w/o a facility. Your IC, AB, and NB would double as rail stations (it is assumed they would have one any way) so again you would not need a new card board chit IMO. This would also self limit places like Africa/China that didn’t have much as far as rail.
My group has allowed limited rail movement for AA50 capping the # of one move units you can rail through each tt based on its IPC values, but AA40 will have many more tt giving to many alternate routes. It think it would be a nightmare to track. The above would be a much easier system.

Thanks Krieg, for a straight forward answer. I appreciate that you didn’t try to sugar coat it. Maybe at some point Larry will revisit some of the fallen capital rules. Seems like they are changing very slowly when you consider the Dutch, French and even China. For now house rules will have to do, but as you pointed out the income slides would be be a concern for game play, not to mention the effect on other IC’s.

In the limited games I’ve played, Jap normally goes hard against China, then uses that force (ground & air) to tackle India with amphib/bomb. I have seen China go towards Burma rd, trying to keep it open. This just seems to make it easier for Japan. Make them chase the Chinese away from India, you may still be able to get some ftrs there for the final show down. If the bulk of the Japs are chasing the Chinese to the farthest northern point it will take them longer to come back for India. At the least it will split their force in half, maybe allowing the UK to open the Burma rd or set up more def. If you keep the Chinese near the Burma road, at least get them an AA gun. I think in the right circumstances you might be able to get Anz ftrs to India for the epic battle. You have to make sure that Japan pays for its victories and try to chisel away at its air superiority (AA guns).

Japan has left the bulk of its fleet at the Caroline Isles in the games I’ve played. This keeps the US in check in the early rounds (once it gets off the coast, can’t leave Hawaii for NZ/Dutch ). Also keeps Anz afraid to leave Australia, limiting what they can do as well. I have also seen the UK/Anz take the Dutch, only to have that income nullified through the convoy’s. I find it tough for the allies, but not impossible. You have to play very good def, and forecast what the Japs will do. Pick your battles when opportunity presents itself, and run like hell to fight another day when you can.  UK has to protect Continental Asia IMO. I know its a tough choice if Japan hasn’t attacked you yet. The longer you can delay Japan the better the chances for an ally victory (same as most AA games).

krieg, I understand the whole Dutch exception rule. Many times you refer to it as the treat the Dutch as if their capital has fallen, just as you would any other power. Then there’s the UK/Anz have a special deal worked out w/Dutch to take ownership (noncombat). Ok I could see that too. What I don’t get is when say the Anz capital falls, and the same liberties are not given. I would expect that the UK & Anz would have a similar deal worked out. Their bond was much closer.

My question is why did we stop there?
I have never liked the fact that in AA games once a capital falls, you have to wait for the enemy to capture your allies tt so you can liberate them, giving the IPC’s back to your side. Japan & Russia were isolationist, but the rest would have allowed some kind of deal for their friends one would think.

@Flashman:

The values given above are rubbish; Netherlands/Belgium alone is worth more in industrial output than all the rest, possible about equal if we consider Romanian oil.

Well I guess you could make Denmark worth 1 and Bel/Neth worth 3 (to match the map attached to your name) if it makes you feel better. I thought that because of the strategic importance of the straight, it warranted a boost to Denmark. Actually I’m hoping that the Denmark peninsula is a separate tt from the Danish Island’s (even if it has no IPC value), so the Luftwaffe will be able to scramble w/AB (but it probably won’t happen). Any way my earlier post was just to show that Germany’s income should start out in the mid 30’s. That they would sill have many tt at the start even w/earlier start date. In AA50 NW Europe is only worth 2 IPC, I doubled it to 4 IPC. At the end the 3 countries (Den/Bel/Neth) will still be worth about 4 IPC’s together IMO. I cant see Larry making them any higher. The big question about the area is will Germany have a port on the North sea w/IC giving it direct access as it should.

The other thing to consider is that 3 IPC tt allow you to build a major IC. I really don’t think there will be another one on that coast line.

Yea I guess that is true (marking).
In the case that Paris is liberated then all the FF & VF would now be just French. It might behoove the axis to kill off the VF (and totally control the tt) in stead of just letting them be trapped in their Vichy tt to def against the allies, in certain circumstances. That way the axis could also collect the income.

Say Germany takes Paris (major IC), then the French Atlantic coast (minor IC ?). Now France is knocked out (lost last IC). The axis need to decide if they should also take S France (Vichy). It could have a large force on it, but it can’t leave. Should the axis leave it to def, (would the allies come that way anyway) or try to take it out so if Paris is liberated they won’t have to deal with them later.

Similar situations could come up with any power going to the last IC.

I still say the T-bmr will prove itself more when the Euro side comes out and for the GL game.

@Vareel:

I just don’t see a point in a 3/3 unit that becomes a 4/3 for 1 more buck than an always 3/4 unit.  I’d rather just buy an extra sub at some point for the bit more punch if I need it, or on ground a strat bomber for the range, or an art if range isn’t an issue.

Comparing a T-bmr to a S-bmr is like comparing apples to oranges (they are both fruits, but different non the less). Both will give you that coveted 4 on attack (granted w/strings attached). S-bmr gives you +2 in range (very helpful in certain circumstances). It will depend on your strats for the game, and what power you are playing.
For the axis who normally attack very aggressively in the beginning of the game, that 4 (on attack) will be an awesome tool. Then later if your in a more def role the t-bmr (3) will come in much more handy then the S-bmr (1) for def purposes. I know your going to say you should have bought Ftrs instead, but you wouldn’t have the 4 on attack.
The new air line up will blend to the game very well IMO. Each of the units will prove there value through its unique contributions. Looking at what Jap got as far as air power, Germany may not need to buy many air units as long as it isn’t careless with them. If Germany is forced to attack UK/US ships with its air units (very common) having another unit (4) will come in very handy.

As far as the UK/US/Jap, S-bmrs can’t def your carriers or scramble. The range comes in handy though, so again each unit has its role.

The smaller power opening the door for the larger power is more dangerous. I know it works the other way especially when your all fighting one enemy, but its not as effective. If UK/Anz were allowed to take out a couple of blocker (DD) units (maybe all they can do) then the US comes in and smokes your fleet, OUCH. The turn order in this game doesn’t allow for that. The UK/Anz are really just minor powers, and would be hard pressed to deliver the Knock out punch normally. Of coarse the allies should always coordinate their efforts though.

Flash, I read this topic through again. I follow and agree with your line of thought. Making it you fight till the last IC is lost (IL) to trigger an armistice is a good way to go, as there shouldn’t be that many tt in question by that time. I do think that if you lose your capital IC, but still can fight on you should be forced to turn over that tt IPC value to the enemy (should be some consequence). France won’t have more then 2 IC’s (major on Paris, minor on French Atlantic coast). So the other French holdings (tt) become Vichy and their units can’t leave, but will def against ally forces (basically become pro axis neutrals). The axis powers are allowed to move into these Vichy tt with out a fight. These Vichy tt should not add to say Germany’s purse (IPC), unless Germany decides to attack them and take total control (which I think should be allowed). I understand that if you have French units on say UK soil in Africa they stay Free French (I don’t like the you have to baby sit them to keep them loyal once there FF they should stay that way no need to add another layer). Also that any allied forces that find them selves on Vichy tt will have the option to fight or retreat on their respective turns. You may need to mark the blue units somehow to tell which are FF/Vichy so you don’t get confused latter (maybe a dot on the helmet).

Another question: I know you determined that Vichy forces would def against ally invaders (I like that). I think that’s ok if you talking about only Vichy units. Say Germany/Italy moves into the tt (pro axis neut) and then is attacked by UK. At some point (maybe 2nd rd of battle) could we have the V French change sides just for fun LOL. (I know an unnecessary step)

I like this rule change sugestion, its not simple, but follows logic and is very doable. This same Vichy/pro (fill in the blank) neutral concept could carry over to any power as you said, but again IMO it will still favor the allies most.

I think Russia would have continued on long after Moscow, they already had a contingency plan. That was Stalin’s nature, he would have fought on till the last 10 year old Russian girl was killed. Slaughter of his own people was acceptable to him.
France and Italy, well we know what happened with them. I would like to see Vichy recognized even if its as simple as certain French colonies became pro axis neutrals with a set # of inf to def, where others stay blue (Free French).

With UK consider maybe Germany didn’t blunder and was able to capture/kill the majority of the English at Dunkirk. England was pretty vulnerable (US still not in the war). Hitler didn’t play by the same rule book, and could have threatened to execute all prisoners if a deal wasn’t worked out (maybe he did idk). That would have been many more lives, and of course a huge chunk of the English fighting force that allowed them to continue the war. I still think that the UK would have moved its base of operations to Canada even if it signed an armistice, or there was a successful sea lion. Canada was separate nation and could have continued the good fight. The Brit’s were much more under handed then the French, so I don’t see a conflict or confusion of British commanders like there was with the French. The British ships and over seas units would have just flown under the Canadian/Anzac flags I would think (which would have really pissed on Hitlers parade).

The USA defiantly had the resources and will to continue, if by some miracle the E or W coast fell into enemy hands. Its not like the axis could mount that kind of invasion anyway, but say they where able to take token victories, its a much longer line of supply then say from Berlin to Moscow. I guess the axis could have maybe sued for peace w/US if all of Europe and Asia was in axis hands (all other allies signed an armistice), and the US was totally isolated. I don’t see that deal including occupation though, it would have been more along the lines of you stay on your side of the oceans and we’ll stay on ours. The only other way they could have put the US out of the war is if they got an atomic bomb and used it, and the US didn’t. Even if the axis would have got all the allies to sign deals, at some point war would have continued because the axis wouldn’t have had the policing force to patrol all its enemies IMO.

Anyway after all the babbling I also think there should be a mechanism to continue on in certain circumstances. I wonder however if it will just turn out to be an ally advantage. If the allies take Tokyo/Rome/Berlin then (unless there’s a terrible blunder on the axis part) those powers are normally beat back with nothing else left just by the nature of there locations. Japan doesn’t have a commonwealth (safe place) China hates them. I guess Jap could continue in Asia or India if it had IC. Italy would just be done as it was. Germany could have some options, but a smart ally player would take those away before they dropped the hammer. Same could be said for Russia unless your using some type of mobile industry.

Yea your right. In AA40P the US going later would be to easy for UK/ANZ to open doors.

I think that’s a better rule then adding units. I still don’t see how you think the defender should get a boost. Its not like there going to say here we come get ready. This game already gives the def an advantage (inf & ftrs). The penalty for either nation is that neither can afford the units needed to conduct the battle. They will be taking much need units away from other fronts that will cost them. Its a trade off that you as the aggressor decide to do.
Say Russia is having a hard time with Germany/Italy and the allies are not doing squat to help her. Russia starts to pull back the Siberians, you think Japan should pay a price because the allies are faltering?

I think in older games there was a place for NAP. Starting w/AA50 and now AA40 there is so many 1 IPC tt in Siberia that a march to Moscow is possible but will take a long time with a smart Russian player. Now its more viable to attack Russia through the Caucasus, at least you meet some of your goals that way, but it will still take a long time. I will side w/Larry on this because of the new (in game) time table that NAP in no longer needed. If its Kill Russia First by time Japan can mount that 3rd arm to Moscow, the allies should be in position to come to her aid. Actually by then they should have knocked the hell out of Italy, retaken France, or be in position to threaten Japan itself (or at least its many holdings).

You your self (Flash) have said many times that the US had control of the Pacific Theater and should be allowed joint ventures. W/Anzac it opens up the door to combined attacks, w/o involving two major (overpowering) countries. I still think its a step in the right direction, with some tweaks you could get more of what you want.

@questioneer:

I’ve heard this turn order also:

1. Germany
2. Russia/France
3. Japan
4. UK/ANZAC
5. Italy
6. US/China

Six players is plenty- each player has enough to do.  With 9 players 3-4 will be doing a lot of sitting around.

That’s a carbon copy of AA50 (41 set up) with France and Anzac thrown in. So it has merit. Germany should defiantly start the hostilities. Japan in the 3 spot feels about right, although it probably won’t attack until its 2nd turn (maybe 3rd). I’m sure that a Jap attack (similar political rules as AA40P) will boost US incomes on both sides of the board, with dec of war on Germany & Italy so the axis better talk it over.

One thing that Larry said very early on though is that the French (fleet) would most likely be controlled by the UK player. Maybe he was referring to AA40E and not GL, where I think France might get its own turn, just like the Anzac does in AA40P. Although Russia playing France is very fitting in GL, after the fall of Paris they were both hostel allies LOL. I was kinda surprised when US went 2nd in AA40P, but I guess it didn’t matter much with just one axis of evil power.