Topics created by WILD BILL

@WILD-BILL Eqqman is correct.

@The_Good_Captain
Thanks Cap

@Panther WILD BILL
less than a minute ago

Thanks Panther, for pointing out the rule’s clarification doc.

Sorry for the screw-up re posted.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

So far Der Kuenstler’s idea makes the most sense to me. I’m still not totally sold on the idea that one unit can make 2 different attacks in the same turn though. It’s great for attacking but at some time you have to defend that move as well. There’s value in having a front line to protect a capital or expensive units in behind it. I’d be more inclined to accept the “Rollover” option but make it so that units could retreat instead of advancing in another attack. That way you could leave infantry in the newly acquired territory (or nothing in) and retreating your expensive units away from a counterstrike but only if you succeed on the first roll in wiping out the enemy.

yes that’s what we do - you can move forward (or backward) with any units that have movement left. There is a downside of doing 2 attacks - your second land attack will be with all more expensive units that are exposed without infantry support.

Try this house rule I used to do. US and UK can attach money or units to transports, the transport is no different than any other transports in the rule. It has to be sent to a Soviet factory before the money or unit can be used. The transport is allowed to land the units anywhere they want to. The money moves only one space per turn or two if it is attached to a tank or mech. Once that unit gets to the factory, the money is now USSR and the unit is converted to Soviet use. Aircraft is allowed to be attached to a transport but it only moves one space. Naval units are NOT allowed for balance. If the money and/or units get captured on their territory, they become axis. Thoughts on this?

What I meant was if art get a off shore shot then any casualties by battleship or cruiser are killed and removed .

Do you have any NA s or tech in yr game . You could make the off shore shot one of those .

1. Yes
2. No

Feel free to ignore my previous post. The move was predicated on the alignment of the balkan minors however their alignment is based on the taking of Paris only. The speed that they may be aligned increases if at war with USSR.

About VC IPCs bonus,
do you think it could be an interesting reward if a conqueror of a not initially owned VC received a +6 bonus IPCs only at the start of his next turn and as long as he holds it a complete round of play?
So this reward comes only after you kept it for a whole turn.
As long as the Victory City is exchange back and forth there is no reward.

If a lost VC is reconquered, it should be a one time +6 bonus to the one Nation which fought back to retrieve it, not the original owner.
For instance, UK captures Leningrad and the IPCs from territory goes to the Russian player,
while UK gets the one time 6 IPCs bonus if Leningrad is still kept in Allies hands at the beginning of UK’s next turn.
Of course, if it is Russia who retrieve Leningrad, Russia will also get his one time extra bonus on his next turn.
We can apply the same mechanics and bonus for Capital Cities.
There is no need to add a higher reward since you already get the opponent’s money.

So this will be a separate IPCs distribution from all others regular and NO calculations.
VC would be treated differently compared to other ordinary conquered territories.

And players will be waiting with expectations to see if they can hold the VC till their next turn to get their rewards.
This will somehow put the emphasis on Victory Cities.
And it gives time to the opponents to not let go a VC too easily since the stakes are high.
It is a 6 IPCs bonus because it is easier to spent right away to not disturb a well prepared buying strategy if at the last minute the bonus is lost.
You can buy 2 Infs or 1 Tank or 1 Sub.
What do you guys think about this? Still a too high reward?

Maybe it should be just a 4 IPCs bonus? especially if playing 1942.2.
So you can at least buy right away an additional Artillery.

This sounds like a good idea. I play with a lot of new players, many of whom are confused by the “units can move 2 spaces, except when they can’t (except for fighters).”

They’ve always had an easier time with 42.2’s NCM.

No, I think 4 units would be horrible for game play, and the Turks would have a good chance to take them out. 8 units seem like a lot, until you have seen 12 units dropped there 2-3 turns in a row LOL. I wouldn’t want them to be too weak to get anything done, or defend themselves, just to tone it down a bit. The UK can ignore India, then bam instant army in two turns. With a limit of 8 units they can still do that to a degree, but it will be weaker then w/o any limits.

At least we agree that it shouldn’t be unlimited

I don’t agree with the two space rule change for land units. Land units in World War 1 were not mobile and if you are looking for a game with full mobility the original axis & allies WOII games are a much better choice.

However I do see the potential of limiting the capacity of producing units in India to 5. Playing UK is much harder as you have to keep producing units in India to keep the Ottomans away and also have to build a navy in the west to threat the Germans. The UK simply lacks the IPC to help the Russians in this scenario since a decisive victory against either the Ottomans in the East or against the German navy in the west is very hard to accomplish. In the two games we have played with this rule Russia Revolution has occurred.

I like this too, but agree it should only be allowed if the USSR is at war.

It would definitely make a great optional rule and tested before it’s adopted as official.

If this proves a game buster, perhaps a Trans-Siberian railroad which would allow a certain number of units to be railed (kind of like the old W@W rules) back and forth across Russia. This would allow the Novosibirsk IC to devote some of it’s capacity to the west.

Aside from any of this, a minor IC in Stalingrad should come no matter what.

Yep, the Soviet player I play against ALWAYS activates Iran and tries a push into North Africa. It’s a good move and two infantry help a little. The move also forces the Axis to move into the Middle East to deal with the Russian threat as opposed to just dealing with the UK/ Free French forces in Africa.

Of course, 9 times out of 10, the Axis is moving in that direction anyway, but Russians in Iran make things a bit more difficult.

Also, perhaps when the combined allies/axis is greater than X over the combined allies/axis, they generate one VP?

This would solve the turtle issue forcing whichever side to come out and fight or face defeat.

Example: is axis have 25+ more IPC combined than allies, +1 VP per turn as long as they have this advantage.

Secondly, the axis and allies start with a different number of VC, so you might have to assign different values for every city, rather than blanket the map with fixed values for each city.

The ability to gain objectives matters alot toward balancing…which is one of the main reasons why i don’t like NO’s because they are not equal in terms of capturing/protecting…partly why the OOB setup was imbalanced IMO.

Yeah I think that we’ll keep the Red Chinese in China the next game unless taking territories away from Japan (think that’s probably how it’s supposed to play out). We just found it strange to have the Russians attacking the Mongolians just for income.

The 3 inf standing army is hardly enough to stop either the Russians or the Japanese from attacking, that’s why I thought it might be cool to have an incentive to keep them both from entering.

Bump for update 5.1 rules:
Damaged Battleships attack & def at 5 or less

Thanks guys for answering all the questions for Wild Bill. From what I read you guys are correct on all fronts! I’ve not been able to get on the forum as much as I use too but hopefully that will change. I am glad you guys love the game!

I think the +6 IPC is worth more for Italy then for the USA. Going from 20 to 26 is relatively better then from 82 to 88.