Oztea's global41 setup pictures

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@oztea:

The US starts with so many land units to offset the cost of catching up to other powers with more units on the board, and that the US has to buy transports just to play the game.

In all honesty id rather chop off a bunch of US units and just give them a bigger homeland bonus (10 more per turn) but I want this to just be a setup not a house rules bonanza.

I think maybe the US should have to buy a few land units; they can start out their 2nd turn filling 10 transports without buying a single land unit and still have some left over.

Yeah, if there are rules changes that pretty much kills the growth this setup is is having on TripleA right now. With the exception of the chinese AA gun, this setup works 100% perfectly in the Global 2e module. I get a few games hosted, and people are checking it out, but for the sake of growth on TripleA, if you do make changes, please have them be setup.

[oztea]

Well since mech infantry are near useless, there is nothing I can swap US units for that provides them insulation against the fact that they will be in a spending ditch.
Unless I make their navy/airforce way bigger and reduce their land units dramatically. But that just means the US will cruise this giant blob of boats to 91 and dominate the med too quickly.

Id rather have the US make a risky 10 transport move into the bees nest of German planes and subs.
An airbase in Holland or Normandy and perhaps another tactical bomber for Germany in Libya.
Id hate to just make Germany stronger to solve this (even though a tac and an airbase aren’t really too much of a boost)

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@oztea:

Well since mech infantry are near useless, there is nothing I can swap US units for that provides them insulation against the fact that they will be in a spending ditch.
Unless I make their navy/airforce way bigger and reduce their land units dramatically. But that just means the US will cruise this giant blob of boats to 91 and dominate the med too quickly.

Id rather have the US make a risky 10 transport move into the bees nest of German planes and subs.
An airbase in Holland or Normandy and perhaps another tactical bomber for Germany in Libya.
Id hate to just make Germany stronger to solve this (even though a tac and an airbase aren’t really too much of a boost)

Well, I think you were on to something with the removal of the US trn off of E USA. Maybe move one transport from 10 and 2 land units to the line islands or something.

1 more tac and 1 AB for Germany doesn’t devastate things. You might want to make sure the tac can’t reach the 98 fleet though.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

I don’t know a ton about German bases for the Battle of Britain, but would it be historical for an AB in Normandy? Seems like that’s where they would be, and Britain is still recovering from the Blitz.

[oztea]

Considering how many sorties were flown over London a base in Holland Belgium or Normandy would be realistic.
The base doesn’t really add any potency to the German forces, just distance. However, can the allies abuse it if they take Normandy? For that reason I am considering Holland. (Holland was where a lot of the V1s and V2s were launched from if I recall)

A tactical bomber in Libya could hit 98, but I have been considering a retooling of the med setup. Upgrading the UK Crusier in 98 to a BB and taking away the sub. Moving the sub in 82 to 72, and moving the Italian transport in 93 to 95.
The Italian tank and mech might move back to Libya (from tunisia) they used to be able to take Alexandria on I1 so italy got a bonus, but that was making italy too strong, I wanted them to have to use a transport to do that….so chances of this move are low.

I have also been considering taking away the Japanese Kamikaze rule because it seems in such bad taste that they are the only power with a special rule in combat.
I also considered adding a port to Finland, so that German naval units used to attack the Soviets on turn 1 could get back to 112 by G2 to prevent the allies from overloading 91 (transport slam)

Also considered taking away the UK north Atlantic sub and an Infantry from London and replacing it with a UK fighter on Iceland.

Im just glad people are playing the damn thing and giving me feedback  :-D :-D :-D :-D

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Taking away Kamikazes wouldn’t be too hard for TripleA; I think they can just be reduced in edit mode.

[barney]

it seems like the kamikazes allow japan to send another carrier group south    if us goes strong pacific japan may be hard pressed trying to expand

[Skippi]

Let me make some statements to the discussion here:
First of all, the work of ozteas setup is great, because its accuracy historically and there are no more special rules. I like this, because so we can play it with the 2nd rules from the Global 1940 game at triple A. But historicall accuracy is not the one big point. It must be playable too! So the work of oztea is the first foundation for a great game (setup). Now we (the players) have to play and report our experience with this latest setup.
I think, the basis of a good discussions are much games, not the only one with the one strategy. Nobody of us has such much games in ozteas setup, that he can say “this doesnt work”. So let be carefull to change things all the time. People dont like this to much.
My own experience based on a playing group of 3 players and much Axis and Allies games at triple A. We have experience of all Axis and Allies variants and we loved specially the Global 1940 game. But i agree to Von LettowVorbeck, that the setup 1941 is very cool.
We played 3 games of 1941. Two of them are won by the Axis (1 europe victory / 1 pacific victory) and one Allies victory. This allies victory is the one, from which LettowVorbeck is spoken in the above discussion. The 7 trn by in US1 was a strategy of me as an answer to my experience as an axis player, as which i conquer moscow in round 5 (7 if you start counting round 3). The idea was to by 100% US 1 atlantic, in US2 50% and at US3 nothing in atlantic, respectively 100% full pacific to defend Hawai. The idea is, that defending is much cheaper than attacking. ANZAC only build ground troops and perhaps 1 or 2 fig. But it was only one big attack for the US in europe. There comes nothing behind that (perhaps a few inf, if you conquer an IC). But you cant see only the one side of the medal (map). You must see, what happens than in the pacific: the japanese conquer easy india in a few rounds (let me say J3, if you are doing well). Chinese must retreat too. Than the japanese can choose: Hawaii, Sydney or SanFranciso. Yeah, i mean San Francisco, because US has to defend booth VCs. Think the japanese player have a good stategic position after conquer india and shipping back with ships and perhaps a few troops to threaten the ANZAC and US (perhaps from the Caroline Islands).
Yeah, its possibly to by 7 trn in US1 and have a big threatening in Europe after US2, but this is for the moment i think. Let me work at an axis counter strategy and let us see in more games.
Our experience from the first games are, that the axis have a sligtly advantage, because they ever conquer India. So we are glad to see, that you oztea added the 3 chinese inf in sikang and remove 3 japanese inf in anhwe as the last changes. Thats the right way me and my friends think. Adding an airbase in normandy and a tac in algeria was the wrong way, because it fortify the axis. The navalbase in finnland wasn’t necessary too, because the germans didn’t must went their ships in SZ 115. Ah, the russian dd in SZ 5. Think, he isnt a problem. The japanese player only must move 1 dd more in SZ 26 instead 1 ss. But if you remove him, remove one japanese dd too (at a minimum).
But this are all only thoughts. Nothing goes about much game experience. So where are the players, who want play with me and my friends the 1941 setup at triple A? :-D

[major whiskey]

Hello guys!
First, after 2 years of reading in this forum, finally the registration worked. Hello to everyone!

@topic: I really appreciate this idea of a 1941 setup, for many people whom i have played with complained ( especially russia and usa) about no action in the first hours ( we tend to start war rather late).
So go on, thank you for your effort, oztea.
To the setup: Its cool that all the different pieces are common on the board ( +actually,i ran our of german and russian mech. inf.). Further , i agree that the us has really a good deal of land units. But i dont think its too much. As oztea pointed out, a dedicated german sub programm and a normandy(maybe not setup-wise is also worth considering) airbase can really throw over a early massive us transport drop.

[xeyo]

Hello,

Thanks to oztea for this setup.

First, let me say somethink about russia’s navy in the pac. It is correct and historical accurate. If you consider russia had two sub-divisions during WWII i would think about givig them an additional sub.

Although its much fun playing this setup, i think it is unbalanced. We are a small group of experience players and we all agrree, allies do not have much chance especially in LL.
If played correctly India falls round 3 even with the possibilty to own all 4 islands for the objective.
This means usa has to go hard pac round 3 at the lates to protect every remaining VC.
Skippi’ strategy gives the allies some hope but they are far away for a obviously win. Sure, if US invest 100% round 1 and 50 % round 2 in atlantic they can gain ground in europe and stop the german blitz TEMPORARY. But on the one side this gives japan more odds for a pac win and on the other side it is possible for Germany to destroy the invasion force. Of couce it delays barbarossa  but once america is out of europe the will not come back becauce of the strong japan. With some investion in navy G1 and/or G2 , correct Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine position G2 it will be a very very costly D-Day. And dont forget the strong italians. Getting Kairo is not that hard especially if UK has to support US in Europe.
In summary i would disadvise to strengthen germany with units or AB. I think the transport buy strategie is fun to hadle with and i would still bet on axis

[oztea]

India getting +2 infantry has long been in the docket.
India does fall fast if the US doesn’t make it’s presence felt in the pacific quickly.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@oztea:

India getting +2 infantry has long been in the docket.
India does fall fast if the US doesn’t make it’s presence felt in the pacific quickly.

I forgot who it was, but he liked to do a move where Japan would stack Yunnan with a ton of stuff round 1 and have all its transports in range of Burma. I found no reason to disagree with him that Japan can have India easily by round 4, even with US pressure.

[oztea]

I remember being told about that, its another case of “if you know it’s coming you can stop it”

If you send every possible UK unit to India it will hold. But that includes units that should be going to Egypt. It’s a tricky problem to design a solution for.

[oztea]

Perhaps an ANZAC infantry and artillery in India could do the trick.

[barney]

played the recent aussie addittion  was fun as usual    used the artillery as opposed to the aa gun    while not a big difference the aa gun is probably the way to go

maybe because it’s new but these games last longer than 40 games      I think you’ve got it down pretty good      I don’t know about the normandy AB  seems like a bit much

more people need to play this  it kicks ass!

[barney]

what do you buy J1?

I usually go ic and ab in fic save the 4 bucks

[oztea]

I buy an IC for french Indo, a transport, destroyer and artillery

[11H5M]

I’m sure…bump! :mrgreen: