Topics created by Young Grasshopper

I had a look this week, like the artwork, but not very convinced yet.
I wonder about Hands at Sea (or something like that, 1st Punic War if I remember correctly).

Well, enjoy it!

I was just curious of similarities and differences.  :-)

If I were to design and make available a card deck with Balance Mod 2.0 national objectives similar to my earlier deck, would you buy one?

Wild Bill wrote,

“Like I said before although Russia needs help, I’m not in favor of Russia getting an NO bonus if the western allies make landings stick in Europe. The Russians are already getting the benefit of Germany fighting two fronts, therefore axis will have less to spend on the eastern front (that is the real bonus).”

Would you be willing to test the Russian NO before simply scrapping the idea? I think both ideas, the Russian NO and the Lend Lease idea might be a way to end the Allies “bidding.” By the time an Allied landing can stick, its usually too late for the Axis to really dislodge them anyways. This might help to end a game that really takes too long. However, it might result in quicker landings that actually fail, (resulting in no NO for Russia), and then actually make Germany stronger, because they secured “fortress” Europe.

In another thread by YG, he asked about changing the turn order to let the US go last. That might also be a good way to end the bidding process. Also, it sounds historical since the US was the last major country to enter the war.

How is this not pinned at the top of this thread?

That is exactly what “spirit” or “substance” would argue;  that if they refuse to debate/vote on the nomination, it passes because otherwise we don’t have a supreme court.

However, that is not what the “letter” or “form” of the law says which is that consent of Congress is necessary, period, no exceptions.  The supreme court must exist under the constitution, but the number of judges is not set.  This means that SCOTUS could have as little as 1 judge sitting and it would still be operating “correctly” in theory.  Just like a filibuster, this means that no debate or floor discussion is necessary;  Congress gets to choose its rules and its agenda and can refuse to do its implied duty (such as pass a functioning budget;  eg the sequester).

The supposed fix to this is that in theory, no one would vote to re-elect politicians that intentionally break the government to serve their own ends.  Again, in practice, people are so loyal to their agendas, they do not care (or want!) that their elected officials are intentionally disabling the president and damaging the government.

That’s how the system is supposed to “work”!

All good reasons not to try and use external information or the argument of pragmatism to argue for/against a rule.

If you want the shorebombardment rule to be accurate, you should think about what role it played historically.

In WW2, most divisions had an artillery component. If you count the number of light, medium and heavy guns in divisions, you quickly discover there where ALOT of guns, and the armies used a lot of resources to have them there. Artillery where extremely important. When an inf attacks at 1 and defends at 2, that unit has alot of artillery as a part of the piece. Otherwise it would attack on 1 for each 3 units or something.  In essence, artillery is important.

When you have a regular battle, you deploy some artillery at the front, and some on the sides, and some in the back. What is deployed where is dependent on the type of artillery and the type of terrain. When you do an amphibious invasion, you can deploy none of your artillery. You can have some marine landing vehicles with some small caliber guns and perhaps a few amphibious tanks.  This is how the ships guns where used, they where used as a replacement for artillery.

Therefor, If I where to try to make an accurate Shore Bombardment rule, I wouls make it so that, in the first round, you could only attack with 8 units per supporting BB, 4 units per supporting CR and 1 unit per supporting DD

I would not be G40 boxed set for a new rulebook or even for new French unit sculpts. However, I would buy a G40 boxed set for some combination of two or more of these changes:

1. Long standing balance issues were resolved officially instead of with the house rule hodgepodge we use now.
2. Historical inaccurances (Scapa Flow, Iceland, Sierra Leone, etc) were corrected on the map/setup (for instance, Iceland was occupied by the US on July 7th 1941, but the map shows it as a UK territory from the start).
3. There were cool new sculpts for multiple powers, and cleaned up sculpts for units that look too similar (ANZAC cruiser vs destroyer for instance, or corrected the 9 ft tall ANZAC infantry unit).
4. New map! For instance, eastern Russia is vast and would have been a Japanese sinkhole that brought no benefit, but in the G40 map those territories all actually produce income. The Global War map is a much better representation – combined German/Japan strategies that work on the current map would not work on Global War map.
5. Map supports faster setup – MICs and setup bases pre-printed, for instance.
6. Rule changes that allow the US to build bases on other Allies territories.
7. Rule changes to fix unit issues (cruisers!)
8. Separate control markers for UK Pacific vs UK Atlantic

Basically, a couple of big changes or a bunch of small changes make the investment worthwhile IMO.

Fixing NOs could be part of #1 – giving the UK an additional NO of no German navy in the Atlantic other than sea zone 112 would probably help the balance issue. Also, giving Japan an NO that costs it money if it DOESN’T control those islands once at war with the US might help the balance issue.

Marsh

@Cmdr:

I would be concerned in allowing the UK to can open like that for the Americans.

What if the turn order ended:  USA >> Italy >> Germany (Germany being first in the turn order)?

That at least permits Italy to blitz some tanks from N. Italy into Denmark to save Germany’s arse at the last minute.

London is at risk, Calcutta is at risk, Moscow is at risk… Why shouldn’t Berlin and Rome be at risk?

YG, I haven’t seen Low Roller’s document (BGG requires a person to register in order to download files), so I can’t really comment on it – but here’s an idea that you might want to consider for your own rulebook project, since it may save you a lot of work and may perhaps also be safer from a legal point of view.

I imagine that your project to rewrite the entire Global 1940 ruleset as a combined document will require you, as a first step, to create an outline of the document that you want to create – basically, a plan for the structure of the whole document, arranged in whatever way you think will be best from the point of view of clarity and ease of use.  I also imagine that, as another preparatory step, you’ll need to make an inventory of all the parts of the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that you wll want to use, with page references to those parts of the two rulebooks.  One way to make that inventory would be to plug the page references into your structured outline, to give yourself a complete plan of where in the rulebooks you’ll need to go to write each section of your projected document.  (This may not necessarily be the way you were planning to prepare the project, but for the sake of argument I’ll assume that this was going to be your methodology.)

Anyway, what occured to me is this.  Having prepared a detailed outline of the type I’ve described, and having inserted into the outline all the required page references to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks, you might not find it necessary to re-write anything at all.  The document I’ve described would serve as a kind of sophisticated index – a conceptual one, not an alphabetical one – to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that treats them in a combined way and that provides access to their content according to whatever logical structure you think would be most convenient for use by players.  The players would still have to go from your document to the rulebook page to which you referred them, of course, but the point is that you wouldn’t have to spend any time actually rewriting the two rulebooks, which would save you an awful lot of work.  Furthermore, since you’d neither copying-and-pasting the rulebooks (which would be questionable from a legal point of view) nor re-phrasing the actual content of the rulebooks (basically trying to get around potential copyright problems by putting the rulebooks into your own language), you might be on safer legal ground.  Essentially, you’d be providing people with a structured and easy-to-use way of accessing official rules, rather than either reproducing or rephrasing the rules.

I was twelve when I got 1941.  I am only 16 still.  My group consists of 11-53 years of age the youngest being my little brother.  Most of us are 15-18.  Three of them are family members and the rest are friends or simply kids from school.  I would recommend that he first ask his family if they are interested.  That is a small chance so he can then go to his friends or people his age he is axquainted with or anyone decent and interested really.  However, I spent my first year just playing solo and occasionally with family and this really helped me get the rules down.  Best of luck to him!

@suprise:

I’ll be there with the G 40, G 41, and G 42, Yes Oztea’s 41 and Larry H,'s 42 Global
Look for me Fri Afternoon Y.G.
S.A.

Awesome, we will begin our pre-con G40 game at the bunker when you arrive… Cheers.

@Erocco:

Am I blind or there is no victory deck to download? I understand everything is on YG’s website but I can’t find the VO deck filke.

It’s coming this week, check in around Thursday.

Do you just buy “tabletop simulator”? how do you access game?

Here is an example of the failure of bombing a small coastal emplacement at Normandy:

"SAINT-MARCOUF : THE CRISBECQ BATTERY
GERMAN COASTAL DEFENSE

The only heavy battery on the eastern coast of the Cotentin Peninsula, the Crisbecq Battery, was located 2.5 kilometers from the shore on a crest overlooking all of Utah Beach. From Crisbecq, the Germans could see and defend the entire coastline from Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue to Grandcamp.

Although it was never completed, the Crisbecq battery was the keystone of this portion of the German Atlantic Wall with three, long-range 210 mm cannons and a garrison of 400 men. The Allies dropped over 800 bombs on Crisbecq between April 19 and June 6, 1944. This unrelenting aerial attack climaxed on the night of June 5 when 101 four-engine bombers unleashed 598 tons of explosives on the battery. On June 6, the surroundings were unrecognizable, but the guns were still intact.

At 6 am on D-Day, as GI’s were landing on Utah Beach, Crisbecq opened fire, sinking an American destroyer.

The battery held out for several days, despite shelling by U.S. battleships and attacks from the American Infantry in hand-to-hand trench combat.

To repel the Allied assault, the German commander of Crisbecq radioed to the Azeville battery and requested that it fire on his position. Crisbecq was finally taken at 8:20 am on June 12, after the German commandment ordered its troops to evacuate to La Pernelle, between Quettehou and Barfleur. The fierce German resistance momentarily halted the Allied Advance to the north. "

Just pulled that off of a google search on D-Day.  I’m not trying to be a chump with this post, just noting that “bunkers” were built to be hidden (maybe not all of them) and to withstand such an attack even if discovered before ground operations.  I mean if 101 heavy bombers in one mission the night before D-Day have little impact why should a SBR inflict damage on a bunker?

@AlphaKappa:

I’d be interested.  I’m pretty handy with the Adobe suite.  Want to post a sketch of what you envision?

Thanks, I’ll send something on the weekend.

I feel like the “3rd” option is stacking UK navy in 92 and building an air base in Gibraltar UK1.  Same risk of Sea Lion as building the IC in Egypt UK1 tho.  This requires “breaking out” by attacking the Italian Destroyer in 96 with air power (bomber from London and Fighter from Malta).  I would also recommend an attack on Ethiopia via India support combined with the Tac and TT with 2 units from egypt, then consolidating Alex/Egypt forces in Egypt.  If, for whatever reason, UK navy in 110 was avoided, send them to 92 as well.

Just another option to consider with lots of “ifs”.  Germany’s opening move should dictate your options rather than have a hard and fast “this is what the UK MUST DO”.

I’d be willing to make the trip to play in a G40 tournament up there. My balance idea that seems to work well so far is to combine the UK income. Don’t split the money between Europe and Pacific anymore. It seems to balance the game well.  Also India is no longer a capital.
If you’re scheduling a game this year let me know and I’ll head out there.

Hello everyone, please checkout my YouTube video discussing how to become a better Axis & Allies player.

Cheers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7oA9uzg43Q