The holland conundrum is a serious one.

NO chance at taking paris, fighting + 4 infantry.  VS capturing paris, 2 rolls at +5 and 6 inf at +2.

Definetly better to stomp throught the Mag line...

And that doesn't mention the fact that as is - if you stomp Holland, you F-over Japan in the pac currently, with the whole DEI turning Brit.

Exactly

Taking a closer look at your proposal #1 (I assume you meant to say Reims instead of Marsells)

1. If Germany attacks HOLLAND G1, any units surviving that attack and are in HOLLAND, get the option to attack Marseilles Reims (east france) immediately after, but BEFORE the 2nd impulse begins.  (In theory, allowing a small triple impulse).

This would definitely work in Germany's favor and allow them to bypass the Maginot line, then push all the way to Paris (the prize) with those units. You might even suggest that units in Reims def -1 if the Germans bypass the Maginot line and blitz through the low countries because they are caught off guard (but that could have a lingering effect on the fort rules in general unless it was a stipulation for only the Maginot line). The FEC immediately acquiring all the DEI if/when Holland falls still needs to be fixed (you have some great suggestions).  

Looking at the original set-up the Germans aren't really set to get to Paris the way they did (lack of mech/tanks on the western front IMO, see later). I know they can crash through the Mag line (Reims) with their slow moving inf from W Germ & Bavaria and capture Paris in the 2nd impulse using those units, but that really doesn't feel like the mechanized blitz that got them there in WWII.

What if at the end of Germany's first impulse all mechanized units are allowed a second attack (would include tanks, mech and art being dragged w/mech) and you can also use air units that didn't take part in attacks yet. Swap out some of the starting inf in W Germany for mech (say three), and maybe slide an art and tank over from Stettin (tanks from Stettin can still make it to Holland, just puts it in the right direction). You would use mechanized units to attack Holland in the first impulse, and if successful then blitz them to clear Reims from Holland at the end of the 1st impulse (bypassing the Mag line). The rest of the slower moving inf from W Germany and Bavaria could now NCM into Reims (fort would be gone) at the end of the the 1st impulse to be used in the 2nd impulse (assault on Paris). Any fast moving units built at the end of the 1st impulse that are placed in W Germany could also be used to assault Paris in the 2nd impulse (path through Reims would be cleared). This feels more like a blitzkrieg to me.

Could also have all units def at -1 in this blitz at the end of the 1st impulse because they are caught off guard to better insure the outcome (wouldn't want Germany to be halted). With the above, I'm sure the Germans could find some use of this mechanized blitz at the end of the 1st impulse to the east as well (haven't really looked at it). I also strongly share the sense that you should be able to effectively circumvent the Mag line through the low countries, and still be able to reach Paris G1 (with those units). Other wise it is like you are penalized, especially when you consider the FEC gains so much income in doing so.

You still have the option of crashing through the Mag line, so maybe that border could be beefed up a bit so that going through Holland is a better option. I like the thought of adding a second fort to Reims to boost def along the German front (the Swiss get two forts). I'm somewhat unclear how 2 forts would work though. It says the Swiss 2 forts allows them to roll in the second round of combat according to the fort rules on pg32. So w/2 forts you get 4 dice (2 from each fort) at 5 or less that would last two rounds regardless of if they still have inf to support them in the second round?  Does the double fort boost your inf +2, or is it doubled to +4 in the first round?

I think that Germany attacking both Poland (Sept 1939) and France (May 1940) at the same time throws the timeline line off in my head because these events are 9-10 months apart, but I also feel like the game needs Paris to fall G1, or many things would be affected with the allies able to go in between. To me with the Germans basically taking a double turn G1 stretches from the fall 1939 attack on Poland, through the "Phoney War" where the allies didn't do much (don't get a turn) and right to the fall of Paris (spring of 1940).  

It would be cool to explore a scenario where the Germans aren't allowed to capture Paris until G2 and the allies have some limited NCM between the attack on Poland, and the fall of France (as mentioned in my earlier post). It would be a nightmare to foresee the many options and play hell on balance, so the way the game gives Germany two turns G1 is the best approach IMO. It just needs a tweak, and there are some great idea's floating around.

Just thinking out side the box hhhmmm, would it be possible to stretch out Germany's first turn over two turns, and slightly change the blitzkrieg impulses.

In our short exposure to the game some of the time table is a bit off. We generally leave both Norway and Holland for later (Holland much later as it turns out). We are more focused on taking Paris to invoke the Vichy rule and crushing the UK fleet on G1 using the impulses (well Poland is in there too LOL).

Could you allow things to play out in a more historical timeline and have Germany do the things it did in 1939, but not attack France until G2 (say 1940) where it would get its main blitzkrieg (2nd impulse)? It might work if you put in some restrictions on the allies (but you would might need to tweak the set-up).

Just here me out:

1) Germany is allowed to attack Poland, activate the Axis Minor Powers, and invade Holland or Norway on G1 as they feel fit. They get to blitzkrieg their units into Warsaw w/mini 2nd impulse (units used to attack W Poland can attack again w/air support). They can't attack France or UK until after Warsaw falls (would be G2).
 
2) "The Phoney War", being unprepared (caught with their pants down) the French/English have some restrictions placed on them on their first turn and are not allowed to make attacks. In a reaction to the attack on Poland, and possibly Holland or Norway they can build (using their staring income) and NCM units with some restrictions. They're naval units can only move one space, and they can't remove any starting units from the continent (air) but could bring in some reinforcements if the want too. They could also activate pro allied countries too.

3) The Germans get to fully use their impulses now to smoke anyone they want to on G2. Land battles in France are done first to invoke the Vichy rule (including 2nd impulse to reach Paris). This will determine which French ships will fight w/UK ships if they are moved to the same sz's. After Paris falls then perform battles as normal (with in impulse rules).

On G2 the Germans would be able to use the forces staged in Holland to hit Reims along with any mech/tanks bought for W Germany on G1 (bypass the forts), then into Paris w/2nd impulse. The allies being able to NCM could make things tough on the Germans, but the Germans would also get to use units bought on G1, along with units bought in the first impulse as well (need to anticipate what the allies might do). The French will be harder to take down spending their starting income (10 IPCs), but will have more loot to raid having been paid in the collect income phase, and you could also give the Dutch a starting income (6 IPCs) to loot G1 as well making the Germans 2nd impulse more potent.

Not sure it would work, just a theory that might be cool to try to work out. Is difficult to determine what the allies could do w/NCM between G1 & G2, but I like the thought of a Phoney War of just positioning. Germany could also fully move/build navy G1 to anticipate what the Western allies will do at sea, and use the impulses to track them down. It could lead to to many scenarios though, and throw the balance off. It would also delay the Italians as they won't be able to enter the war until It2 (after Paris falls), and then there is the Russians and US rolling dice to get going, not sure if Germany could afford a delay.

I would also use Gargs other suggestions like #2, once Holland falls that the DEI and Dutch units in the Pac need to be activated territory by territory. The FEC shouldn't just get all the income w/o claiming them individually. Not sure if the Dutch units should be able to move in the Pac until activated though.


Holland isn't much of a choice to bypass the Maginot line if you can't get those units to Paris. It would be much easier to some how incorporate going through Holland on Germany's first turn, but also have those units make it to Paris (like Garg's #1 extra impulse for Holland rule). The game would take on a whole new direction (maybe not a good one) if the allies could do some limited NCM in the name of The Phoney War before Germany calls their bluff and delivers a knock out punch to the French.

This is an interesting out of the box strat, so for that reason alone I like it (would most likely confuse the allies having not seen it before). With that said I think your giving up more then you benefit in the long run. The obvious is the 8-10 IPCs you won't get for owning it G1 or G2. The other (as mentioned) is the ability to drop boats in the Atlantic. I also like to produce a couple German subs from the French coast early in the game to combined with the Luftwaffe to threaten the US fleet at Gibraltar forcing them to over build their fleet (may delay them a turn which is what you want to achieve). Those subs may just end up retreating to the Baltic or the Med, but could still be useful later even if they don't engage the enemy in the Atlantic (making the allies over build their fleet could delay them).

I (as you) would normally not stack the Normandy coast (bombardment and allied air power too effective), I find it better to allow the landing then counter attack from Paris where I can use my own air power (it depends on what they have on the table though). Allowing them to also land the US ftrs and maybe the French ftr are more def 4's in the battle (my counter attack) that I wouldn't want to face.

You say you would be denying the use of the minor IC to the US so they can't build 3 tanks there on their next turn (which is true), but I say I can deny that by taking it back before their turn comes up with the counter attack. If you leave it French you will be facing many more units in your counter attack (maybe even the French inf/art that starts there if you didn't strafe it).

I would be interested in hearing how things went though if you do it.  

The piece they cut will probably be going for $500.00 on E-Bay by March LOL

Yep, I wound like Russia to start with fewer majors, and a couple more minor ICs (not like they will build 10 units in Novo), or have the option to move some of their production capability. 

Wild Bill,

All ICs built in Axis Minors are minors .

Assuming that you're joking (nice pun), or there has been an amendment to the rules that I haven't seen the Germans are allowed to build a major IC on Axis Minor powers territories that meet the 3 IPC production requirement (Romania, and Hungary). From what Tigerman posted they are looking at making a change here to allow only minor ICs to be built on the Minor Axis territories. We have already adopted that in our games finding that a major IC built on Romania allows to many units to be pumped out at the front w/Moscow only 3 spaces away (similar to Siam being 3 spaces to Calcutta).

Rule pg25
Germany is allowed to build a minor, or major IC on any Minor Axis territory that meats the requirements (2 production value for a minor IC, 3 production value for a major IC)

Rules on pg31 (A. Industrial Complex) in the bullets say that Japan can only build a minor on Siam, but Germany doesn't have that restriction. It just says
"Germany can build an IC in any of the applicable Minor Axis territories"

Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power.

Yes.  The rules are quite clear on that point.

The rules on page 31 that describes what a NB does could lead you to believe it is ok to have the NB in one territory, and the IC (adjacent) in another as long as the sz is adjacent to both.  

"Newly built naval units may only be placed in sz's containing a NB and an IC in the adjacent territory".




Rules on page 12 for place new units goes the other way. It clearly say the IC & NB both need to be in the same territory.

"New sea units are placed in sz's adjacent to a territory that contains both an IC and NB"

I have asked for clarification before, and they are looking at the function of both AB & NB. For now we will allow ships to be built as long as the sz has a NB servicing it, even if it isn't on the same territory as the IC. It would strike me funny if after review they don't allow it. Wouldn't make sense to have to buy a second NB for the same sz for ship building, but you never know?  

I also wanted to know if an ally's NB servicing a sz next to your IC would allow you to build ships. You can use your partners NB for everything else (movement, repairs) why not his shipyard for builds, but that might be a stretch. I would be fine w/a ruling that the same power needs to own both the IC & NB servicing the adjacent sz (even if the NB is linked to another territory).

I could have missed it but where does it say minor axis build there units for free?  We have never played that way.

page 25 says they are limited to producing 3 units per turn.

if they produce for free then there is no reason for them to collect their own income.

When I say for free what I meant is that Germany gets paid the income value printed on the map for the minor axis powers original territories, and each of them also gets a set income as well (they basically double dip). The later part is pretty much free income for the minor powers to build units IMO.

I see what your talking about with the Commonwealth, it could be viewed as  a bit of a double standard I guess. I will say that each Commonwealth power has its own IC to produce units (axis minors just mobilize free units), and playing them as separate powers can be a bit restricting to the UK. I like the option of incorporating Canada & S Africa into the UKs econ and not play them as separate powers (which is what we normally do). So in that case it would be the same, all income goes to UK. We play FEC & Anz as individual powers though.

I do have a quick question for the creators brought up while discussing the minor axis powers in another thread:

If the Germans build a naval base on Romania can the Romanians (who don't need an IC) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units in their capital (not ships next to it)? Using the same principle, are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.


I believe this next part is still under review, any word yet?

This leads me to a 2nd question, say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also fill the requirement to allow for ships to be built from Germany's Romanian IC adjacent to it? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?

Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements for shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Say the Italians take Holland and build a NB (sz 16). Would the Italian NB allow the Germans to drop ships into sz 16 from their adjacent major IC in W Germany?

I get your point of how the minor axis powers can't grow to buy more units, but it also keeps them from getting to big IMO. I also see that these powers are contributing mostly inf, unless you purchase some art for them, and allow mech built further back (like Bulgaria) to pair up keeping those combo's together heading towards Russia. I think that is what the designers had in mind though when they put this mechanic together. This gives the Germans a steady flow of inf/art needed at the front to continue the assault, and it also keeps those captured Russian territories occupied so they don't sprout up partisans as the slower moving inf move up. I also think that the steady flow of units these minor powers add to the game basically for free is a very powerful tool for the Germans, I wouldn't want them to add more resources to them closest to the front as the game goes on, plus it would also weaken the German econ (just MO).

Another thing is that if you allowed them to capture territories for themselves for income I think you would run into placement problems as the game goes on. They can only drop 3 units at their capital. Take Romania for example, they would be the most logical choice to capture territories because they are closest to the front and have the largest starting income (6 IPCs). Theoretically Romania could claim nearly every Russian territory that the axis take going deep into Russia. Why do you need them to buy air units when Germany could do it, and they all fight together. I think the idea was to have the minor powers supply the man power, and the Germans to do the heavy lifting. You want to build tanks (for 5 IPCs for Pete's sake) at the front, then have Germany build a minor IC.

One more thing is that when we play (I believe others do too) we have all the minor axis powers use the same color (light gray Germans from Revised I think), so we don't track them individually once they are all at war. At times we may even swap them out for Germans (chips) because they are essentially the same to stack easier once they get to Russian lands. I know there are some that keep them all separated (probably use some house rules), but I simply don't have the units for it, but feel free to do what you want, this game screams house rules.    


Edit, no need to answer here, I will re-post this blue part to the proper thread to continue Thanks WB (see link to follow up)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28924.0

I do have a quick question for the creators: If the Germans build a naval base on Romania (or Bulgaria) can the Romanians (or Bulgarians) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units? Are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.

This leads me to a 2nd question (similar to one asked before, still under review), say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also allow for ships to be built from Germany's Romanian IC? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?

Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements of shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Could an Italian NB that services a sz next to a German IC fill the requirements of a NB to allow Germany to build ships in said sz?

belay my last... Rules V5.12 says Germany can build an IC.  I think the last time we played we made it whee Germany could only build minor IC's in the axis minor zones. Just to test it out.! 

Good to know, sounds like you guys had similar reservations.

Edit to my post below, I just realized that Bulgaria is a 2 IPC territory, so couldn't support a major, only Romania & Hungary could (my bad). FYI from a later post by Tigerman it sounds like this is under review and the territories of the axis minor powers will be restricted to only minor IC builds by Germany

Kobu, just out of curiosity, is the IC built in Bulgaria a major   (sending units through Turkey)? We were thinking that because the axis minor powers also get to build units in their territories (capitals) that maybe the Germans should only be able to minor ICs in the minor axis powers territories. It is only 3 spaces to Moscow from Romania, and with this Turkish push in might be a bit over the top adding majors at the front. Plus w/mech being able to drag art in this game (which is awesome BTW) you can move units pretty fast.





They did nerf it so that Japan can't build a major on their minor axis power (Siam), because it was too powerful of a move to over throw India. The same principle could be in place for Europe.

We haven't used tech, and I really haven't looked at the tech rules. Are you allowed to research before your are at war, like the US or Russia? I will look when I get home, but it would seem there should be something in place saying you must be at war. Obviously Russia could DOW Japan to side step it, but the US would have to wait.

These kinds of abilities should only be able to kick in while -at war-

I would be ok with that, but allow the Novo major this ability when at war with either Germany or Japan. The Kar and Moscow majors only if at war w/Germany (or Italy).

Sounds like a great game (for the axis LOL). The Royal Navy takes awhile to recover from G1. Our UK buys a lot of bmrs early, but they are generally using them to shuttle inf to Africa, or buying Commandos to go with them to keep the axis on there toes. Losing them to AA guns in SBR ooooouuuccchhh


Our game is still stalled in the early rounds, hope to pick it back up this week.