• But it is up to the player to divide them over the territories.

    yeah I think thats what players would do at the moment
    since we don’t specify

    though could be a blow to realism
    eg. to leave Italy empty…

    regarding IPC at start of game to purchase optional units
    I don’t see the point yet
    purchasing units is pretty much already the opening of the game


  • regarding IPC at start of game to purchase optional units
    I don’t see the point yet
    purchasing units is pretty much already the opening of the game

    +===== this is a special purchase fund that can only be spent on optional units. Its done just like they have it in AA europe. They are placed at the end of the turn with other units that are built so the games strategy will not change dramatically in the opening turn.


  • the thing is they can already build optional units with the first turn’s income
    and the bigger picture is you are giving them more money, why are we doing that?

    and so what do you think of “leaving Italy empty”?


  • the thing is they can already build optional units with the first turn’s income
    and the bigger picture is you are giving them more money, why are we doing that?

    ++++ Its to give players a chance to start with a few new pieces rather than artifically add units to the existing setup and hence ruin the strategy. Now a player can essentually use the strategy he was using before and the volume of ideas that have been created for the game would not be rendered a waste. I do also understand that the new rules will have an impact on strategy. The funds that i propose are in no way a huge deal… perhaps a fund of 12-15 IPC to be spent on these units. enough for a starter force.

    and so what do you think of “leaving Italy empty”?

    Italy is not empty. Look at the set up. Southern italy=italy and has 2 inf,1 art,1 tank,and a bb and Ap off shore. The italian army also has 2 inf ,1 tank,1 fighter in the balkans and 1 inf and 1 tank in lybia. Is that not enough of an Italian army?


  • [quoteIts to give players a chance to start with a few new pieces rather than artifically add units to the existing setup and hence ruin the strategy. Now a player can essentually use the strategy he was using before and the volume of ideas that have been created for the game would not be rendered a waste. I do also understand that the new rules will have an impact on strategy. The funds that i propose are in no way a huge deal… perhaps a fund of 12-15 IPC to be spent on these units. enough for a starter force.
    [quote]

    Well that woud be FORCING the players to buy the new optional units then. (and that wouldn’t be realistic would it)
    And if you don’t force the IPC to be spent on optional units then its just a generic “more IPC”.
    But I see what you are getting at. You are trying to preserve (to some extent) opening strategys.
    I just feel weird about it.

    Italy is not empty. Look at the set up. Southern italy=italy and has 2 inf,1 art,1 tank,and a bb and Ap off shore. The italian army also has 2 inf ,1 tank,1 fighter in the balkans and 1 inf and 1 tank in lybia. Is that not enough of an Italian army?

    Oh I see. Italy is new player so it doesn’t have that problem. You actually specified it.
    So its “Southern Europe” thats empty. But I guess you meant for that.

    But we haven’t solved he generic problem with non-new players.
    Norway/Finland. Vichy France/Western Europe. Western/Eastern Australia.

    I reckon we should just specific the split in the rules.

    Norway: 2 INF
    Finalnd: 1 INF

    Vichy France: 1 INF
    Western Europe: the rest

    Western Australia: 1 INF
    Eastern Australia: the rest

    I see in your phase 3 map with setup ghosts…Finland, Vichy France, Western Australia is empty.

    USSR can take Finland straight away.
    Japan can take Western Australia straight away.

    Is that your intension?
    (It doesn’t quite preserve strategys. But that doesn’t matters.)


  • I think southern Europe should not be left empty in the option with Italy. There should at least be 1 inf.

    I still like the idea of  15 ipc for each player at the start of the game, to spent on optional units. Realistic or not… Btw i doubt that it isn’t because for example cruisers were used allot in WWII, so they should be there at start. Though i also see your point…


  • I sent you both a new set up file for phase 3. This has split the actual forces in many cases between both territories. On western austrailia that would be a great desert so i doubt Uk would garrison it. If you think it should have an infantry then i could shift one over.

    In norway its got one infantry and one plane. Normally the plane should goto finland but many strategys need that plane in norway so it can attack the UK BB off gibralter.

    Let me know if other changes are needed based on the map file i sent you. And i did add in the AA guns.


  • I finally got AI installed… the map with the icons on it turned out great!  I think you did good with the setup.


  • so then no changes even with austrailia?  france/vichy?  finland/norway?


  • @Imperious:

    so then no changes even with austrailia?  france/vichy?  finland/norway?

    I think yes, no more changes. But only because it seems to be decided that no extra units are inserted into the setup, even though there’s more territory to defend…  So. if no more units, then is OK IMO.

    Like you said, Norway needs that fighter, and Western Aus doesn’t need a garisson… Vichy was still really Vichy in June 1942, so no German troops necessary. (also the allies can’t invade it, and germany does need Western protected)


  • OK good. less work for me to do.

    I dont want extra units and i dont like to change the set up either.


  • yeah should be fine to leave Western Australia and Vichy France empty


  • so we started discussion of setup of optional units when they are used
    note it is replacement, rather then more units during setup

    NAV (naval fighter)
    DIV (dive bomber)
    CA (cruiser)
    PARA (paratrooper)
    MECH (mechanized infantry)

    @Imperious:

    Japan 2 cruisers, 1 para, 1 mech
    Italy 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 mech
    Germany 1 cruiser, 2 para, 3 mech

    Soviets 1 para, 3 mech
    UK 3 cruisers, 1 para, 1 mech
    USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 mech

    this would be basically balanced and historical

    I am thinking less, like scale it down
    basic balance is not an issue if we are minimalists

    like
    only Germany and USSR gets MECH
    only Japan and UK gets CA

    placement of NAV and PARA is a simple one

    NAV (naval fighter): all on CV (aircraft carrier), replacing FTR (fighter)
    PARA (paratrooper): all at Capital, replacing INF (infantry)


  • NAV (naval fighter)
    DIV (dive bomber)
    CA (cruiser)
    PARA (paratrooper)
    MECH (mechanized infantry)

    Japan 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 Div
    Italy  1 cruiser
    Germany  1 para, 2 mech, 2 DIV

    Soviets 1 para, 2 mech,1 Div
    UK 1 cruiser,1 Div
    USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 DIV

    all carrier based fighters are replaced with naval fighters.


  • I also feel that Divebomber should be replaced with “fighter-bomber” because it symbolizes the unit better.

    A divebomber is really what the plane does but a fighter-bomber is really what the plane is. The problem is divebombers describe specific naval fighters that existed, while in other parts the divebomber was something used to bomb cities and military targets. We allready have naval fighters so its a bit of a conflict. A fighter-bomber describes all classes of planes that drop a targeted payload , while divebomber can be at least two completely different types of planes one naval and another land based.

    You may even allow limited SBR by these units (at 1/2 values)

    for example:  1-2 = 1 ipc lost, 3-4= 2 ipc lost, 5-6=3 ipc lost on SBR


  • Japan 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 Div
    Italy  1 cruiser
    Germany  1 para, 2 mech, 2 DIV

    Soviets 1 para, 2 mech,1 Div
    UK 1 cruiser,1 Div
    USA 1 cruiser, 1 para, 1 DIV

    PARA (paratrooper) and NAV (naval fighter) is done
    now we place CA (cruiser), MECH (mechanized infantry), and FB (fighter bomber) on the map

    some of these we have no choice and is written below
    options are noted
    ?? means many options

    Japan: CA Caroline Islands, PARA at Japan, FB at Japan/Manchuria
    Italy:  CA “can’t”
    Germany:  PARA at Germany, 2 MECH at ??, 2 FB  at ??

    USSR: PARA at Russia, 2 MECH at ??, FB at Moscow/Karelia
    UK: CA at India, FB at UK/Egypt
    USA: CA at W.US, PARA at W.US, FB at E.US/W.US

    divebomber is really what the plane does but a fighter-bomber is really what the plane is.

    yeah sounds about right
    what short form for fighter bomber be? FB?

    About fighter-bomber performing SBR…we’ll have to get rid of Germany NA: London Blitz ok?


  • Japan: 1CA(East Indies fleet), 1DIV(Japan) 1PARA(Japan)

    Germany: 1CA (Baltic), 2FB(1 Western Europe, 1 Ukraine), 2MECH( 1 Western Europe, 1 West Russia), 1 PARA(Germany)

    Italy: 1CA (Italian coast), 1PARA (Italy)

    UK: 2 CA (Indian Fleet, and Egypt), 1 FB (Egypt)

    US: 1 CA (West coast) 1 MECH (Eastern US) 1 PARA (Eastern US)

    USSR: 2 MECH (Russia) , 1FB(Caucasus) , 1PARA(Russia)

    I Was thinking of something like this…


  • oh…that’ll require putting CAs in place of BBs
    so far I’ve only considered putting CAs in place of DDs


  • Well, I was not thinking about replacing anything with the CA’s… For MECH another story, those could replace existing infantry. But I hope that CA’s could be placed extra for more naval power…

    And maybe place the Japan CA with that lonely Kwantung AP instead of with the East Indies fleet.


  • “About fighter-bomber performing SBR…we’ll have to get rid of Germany NA: London Blitz ok?”

    Yea that NA will have to go.

    Another thing… then the idea is to replace in some cases the OOB setup with these new pieces?

    “oh…that’ll require putting CAs in place of BBs
    so far I’ve only considered putting CAs in place of DDs”

    what parameters do we decide when:

    1. we add a piece

    2. we replace a piece with the new piece

    generally i dont like to remove any pieces or replace them with any new ones. Id rather add a small ‘seed’

    Micoom’s idea is fine… but i post some small change in bold.

    Japan: 1CA(East Indies fleet), 1FB(Japan) 1PARA(Japan)

    Germany: 1CA (Baltic), 2FB(1 Western Europe, 1 Ukraine), 2MECH( 1 Western Europe, 1 West Russia), 1 PARA(Germany)

    Italy: 1CA (Italian coast), 1PARA (Italy)

    UK: 2 CA (Indian Fleet, off greenland), 1 FB (Egypt)

    US: 1 CA (West coast) 1 MECH (Eastern US) 1 PARA (Eastern US)

    USSR: 2 MECH (Russia) , 1FB(Caucasus) , 1PARA(Russia)

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
  • 6
  • 2
  • 13
  • 4
  • 10
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

56

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts