Normally my amphib core will start w/2trts . I like to use 2 inf, one art, and one tank. I like to get the feel of a special forces group. The art makes one of my inf a marine. If I'm going w/more transports I try to keep the same ratios. I like art when doing amp to boost my inf. Attacking with mostly ones just doesn't cut it for me (even w/air power).

calvinhobbesliker, you seem to get yourself into these pissing contest quite often. I think its because of your vast knowledge of the game, and your keeping yourself updated with the constant changes. I don't think people get offended by getting something wrong in a post   , I for one like to know if I've been playing something wrong. I think its more of the arrogance or snippingness (not sure if that's a word) of your remarks that make people respond in a negative way. Kreighund corrects people all the time and is well respected for it, take a page from his play book (think how would Kreig handle this) and things will go smoother.

BTW I thought you said you were 17 in a post a month or so ago, maybe you said you were turning 17 (at the age of 46 some times my memory isn't that great)  

Landing in CA/MEX/AK does nothing to the US.   Ok, so I take 1 turn off, grab 10 tanks and push your out.  Good waste of $ for Japan, while I now have Remaining Armor to load back up on TR's.

It's simple math. The US has WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much money to burn off in the Atlantic.  

I can only hope that the game truely wasn't playtested, or they were told that the Allies should win 90% of the time.  

Something tells me that in these groups that have the Axis winning 50/50 or more, the better players are taking the axis as it is the harder side.   you put the guys who are drinking, don't really play, or are new on the allies, and a few mistakes are made and taken advantage of.

 

As far as testing I can't see a mandate that the allies should win most games. I think they may have missed some stuff due to time restraints though.  I would think the testers were accomplish players, and played both sides.

I had to LOL when you said axis wins must be due to better players on that side, or the allies must be drinking to much. Maybe its the opposite in your group, and its the axis that are partying to much causing them to have an error in judgment  

Anyway I think this game may evolve for awhile yet. Right now there is a movement to give Japan an extra 10 ipc's when not at war w/western allies (that should help try it). If you think about how the axis really can't disrupt the US income unless they go balls to the walls for the continental US. Those 3 tt are worth 72 ipc's (once at war). I think that if you give it some time, you might see the US at war bonus broken down. I don't think there will be any type of split US income, but part of their NO might be severed off and put into bonuses on the pac side in global. Larry is listening to concerns, and he is very approachable on his site.  BE PATIENT

9th game completed tonight.   That's 9-0 allies.

Our group contends that if you have players of relatively the same ability playing both sides, and the standards are followed, there is little to no chance of an axis win.


Solutions were are kicking around:

Split US income just like UK.    52 for a KGF is impossible to deal with.   82 is even worse.    

Putting a Minor in Romania from the start.

Adding Axis airpower in Europe

Eliminating French Units

Making French units Vichy when Paris falls

Removing the minor IC from S. Italy

Not sure what combo of these to try first...

I think that game balance differs from group to group. I also think that some people play certain powers better then others like Gargantua w/Germany. One guy in our group is very good with Japan, and you can't ignore him. Play styles make a big difference as well. Some people are attack-attack-attack, some are more defensive minded. I also think the axis have a longer learning curve in E40, and G40. Some of those early victories probably shouldn't count. If your group is anything like any normal group playing, the first couple of games are riddled w/mistakes, and the axis seem to have a harder time overcoming mistakes. Things like forgetting to take Finland G1, or not seeing the 1-2 punch the allies can pull on the Danish straight (how to protect against it w/Italy). Its also possible some early games had wrong rule interpretations, or some games exploited some rules that may be changed in the FAQ. The FAQ should be out this month, until then I would keep working on axis strats. I would find it a challenge to break the streak.

If in all these one sided games the axis never even sniffed victory then yeah maybe your group should look at making some changes. Its not much fun playing if you know ahead of time your going to win or lose. For me I wouldn't start with things on your list other then maybe IC's. Restricting major IC builds to your own orig tt (no US major on Norway or Korea), and/or maybe starting w/German minor on Romania like you said.

Personally I would start w/US NO if your main problem is US having to much income in Europe. You could simply try shaving off 5 ipc's from the US at war NO (making it 25 ipc's instead of 30 in both E40 & G40). In global if US is swinging to much income to Europe you could split its war time NO up, forcing it to hold onto certain Pac islands or tt to keep its income in tact, so the US can't just ignore the Pacific.

Krieg, for clarification when Russia is not yet at war w/Euro axis, but is at war w/Japan (I know it is subject to change in the future, and I hope it does). Theoretically Russia can get a ftr/tac on a UK carrier on R2. UK could move the carrier it has w/in range or build one. If Germany or Italy attack the UK carrier w/Russian air unit on it do we follow the at sea or on land rules.

1) treat it as a naval unit and ignore the Russian air unit allowing it one movement point to get to safety in noncombat (No DOW).
2) treat it like cargo and it is trapped on a damaged carrier, or goes down if carrier is sunk (No DOW).
3) treat it as hostel like an at war friendly ftr on carrier (or a ftr on a land tt) allowing it to def in the air (needing an axis DOW), and after words the ftr follows normal rules if it survives.

If the Axis power declares war on USSR, option 3; otherwise, option 1.

Good to know, thanks. (subject to change based on possible future revisions RE: Russia)

Flash, I know that Russia was a wild card, but why do you think Japan could have joined the allies. The US was really a silent partner to the UK and China in 1940. US/UK were already at odds w/Japan, and both were actively aiding China. The US had placed the embargo on Japan before France fell, then really tightened it up w/invasion of FIC. The Tripartite Pact was signed in Sept 1940, but it had to be in the works for quite some time (well before the fall of France). Even if Japan didn't attack Pearl/Phil, at some point they would have invaded French/Dutch/UK colonies (allied tt). Maybe after the fall of England?

If Hitler would have gotten UK to sign a one way peace deal (that he thought was possible) to stop hostilities ending the allies before the US came in then yea I guess Japan would essentially be on the same side. Such a deal may have included handing over those colonies. Maybe Germany and Japan would have started a fight over control?

If you allow coastal AB's to scramble just one air unit (ftr/tac) into each sz that it touches you will fix many problems that have been talked to death w/o changing set-up..

1) Entire UK navy gets destroyed G1. The RAF being able to scramble just one ftr into sz 109 and/or 110 will force Germany to make some different choices. They will have to over compensate for the possibility of a ftr, that will leave them tin in other battles. Part of the UK navy has a better chance to survive (as it should).

2) Most of the Italian navy is sunk UK1. If the Italian AB could scramble just one ftr off the boot into each sz (95/97) the Taranto Raid would be riskier for the UK.

Both of these could still happen, but the out comes may be different. Both sides would benefit. It would also help Germany protect the Baltic/Denmark. Russia could send a ftr to def its BB. This would be a fun rule to test. It is kinda lame that an AB on and island can scramble unlimited air units, but a coastal AB give no protection to your fleet or against an amphib.

What I really can't wrap my head around though is how the entire Japanese archapelago manages to be in a single seasone (with the inherent ability to scrable) while the UK spans across 4 spereate zones.  

Maybe London is suppose to fall, while Japan is not

If UK could scramble, the axis would never be able to attack their fleet. All those sea zones force the allies to maneuver a bit and plan ahead logistically. If it was all one sea zone, the fleet would have no need to move. Most of the Europe action occurs near London.

If Japan could not scramble, it would never be able to secure its sea zone from the U.S. without keeping its fleet stationary during the whole game. Most of the Pacific action does not occur near Japan.

Seems like a small issue to me, as the axis have a hard time winning in our games.

It is also rather strange that Germany can sink the entire British fleet on G1, and can keep the Brits from building new ships around England for several turns. I don't think UK (not an island by game standards) should have the same scramble abilities as Japan (for game play as stated above), but should have some limited scramble ability. When you take into consideration that UK was more advanced in radar (with stations all over the English channel) then anyone else.

Maybe just allowing 2-3 units to scramble into a coastal sz from any AB, as long as that sz is also serviced by an NB. The UK would be able to def the 2 southern sz (109 & 110), but not the Scottish to the north (111 &119). This would allow Germany to destroy UK ships north of UK, but if it wanted say hit the DD & BB in sz 110, it would have to commit more units, therefore not able to completely wipe out the UK navy.

The axis would also benefit by limited scrambling. Germany into part of the Baltic, and North Sea (112 &113), but not the Normandy coast unless it builds an AB there. Italy would benefit, making the Taranto raid more risky for UK.

Edit: Even allowing just one unit to scramble into each sz from a coastal AB would make more sense than none at all.

Yep, just like history. You have a better chance of winning if you can take advantage of your enemies mistakes. Of course it does help if you can out produce them 

I would rather see a later version-setup (41) so most of the political rules work them selves out. Lets get to the fighting, enough tip-toeing around.

While I was wading through this personal crap, I noticed the side bar advertising. It was for a Russian dating service. It said:

"Find Your Russian Beauty Today".

Thought it was very fitting for the topic about where Russians can go, and the remark about woman directed to Calvin.

  LOL

What you propose is much better then straight converts (didn't like that old Russian NA, to easy). Having them pay for conversion (1/2) should keep it from being overly used, but should still have some limits though. Might even consider historical shipping routes for Russian tt that are able to receive units.

We have really drifted from the original topic.

Should get back to where Russian units can go based on who they are at war with. My understanding is that these rules are under review, and may change w/FAQ.

kcdzim, all neutrals being hostel to Russia is very interesting, and probably more realistic (don't think it will be adopted though). Russia being a hostel ally (not allowing units to mix w/western allies) is also historic and would give the game a good twist. The boards have shown some support for something like this in the past and would be a cool house rule. If the allies end up having an advantage in E40, or G40, adopting a hostel Russia could swing things back to center. Of course you could work in a lend lease program w/western powers and mobile industry so Russia could continue to build if Moscow falls.

No.  By the rules, you must declare war on a power before attacking its territories.  There's no exception made if the power doesn't control its capital.  As I said, we'll need a more elegant solution.

If it makes you more comfortable, just say that Japan gets the NO if it's not at war with US or UK/ANZAC and it has not invaded any French territories.

I still don't see the logic here. After Paris fell (June 1940), Japan occupied FIC (Sept 1940) and it fits in the time line. Once you loose your capital your tt should be up for grabs. Hell even UK attacked the French during this time, so why not Japan. I don't see any reason why Japan should be penalized for invading FIC. It was a historical action Japan took to cut off aid to China, a power it's is at war with. I know the game doesn't include any Vichy type rules, but FIC should be fair game for Japan (along with any other French tt Japan can reach). In global Japan needs something to conquer while it is stalling its full blown attack. It needs to be able to increase its income other then just China (as its enemies will be doing so in the region). I don't see why you would be considering a ��� NO (bribe), to stall its attacks on the UK/US tt, only to handicap it.

With this thinking before we know it a ��� invasion of FIC will bring the US into the war early (which it obviously should not do), so why would it take away its proposed NO involving war with UK/US.

They should at least be able to attack neutrals, like they did historically(Baltic States, Bessarabia, Poland)

Again, we're talking about G40 here.  Those regions are not Neutral in the OOB setup I see.  Russia starts with E Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltics.   No need for them to attack any of those on R1, they took them on R-Zero.

Yeah, those tt are not neutral to start. OOB shows Russia's aggression, and they are "RED". However, I think that Russia (as an aggressive nation) should be given the right to invade any of the remaining neutrals that it can get to w/o a DOW w/Japan. War w/Japan really has nothing to do with what Russia does in Europe/Middle East. Invading neutrals should just be part of Russia's political situation rules IMO (expand the Empire). If this clause is changed (DOW w/��� allows Russia to invade neutrals before its at war w/Euro axis) you would have a better chance of putting a NAP together too (would only concern ���/Russian relations). Russia did invade NW Persia (as UK took control of the rest). Stalin wanted access to the just finished rail lines (Soviet interests-trade routes, protect its Caucasus oil etc), plus Stalin didn't want UK that close to its boarders either (trust issues). As far as Russia going further in the middle east, that's up to the allies to sort out (I think that's why Larry made Persia 3 tt's). Russia can't get to Bulg, Yogo, or Greece (blocked by Romania). Furthermore if the German player makes a blunder, and forgets to invade Finland, the Russian player should be able to take advantage.

Just for the record I think that Russia should stay out of all UK tt until officially at war w/Euro axis (and vise versa).