Get the Brit Inf back in Egypt and a Russian Bomber for 2nd Edition



  • Quit your B itch in and get back on topic. Do i have to put you two in a corner until class is over? Every topic you two happen to grace us with words there is a dumb, VERY dumb argument that does not even matter. Do it privately, or not at all. No one cares. I don’t want to have to read through your childish rants to each other every time someone starts a new topic. We get it, IL is a pompous pseudo intellectual, and Garg is a wiseass. No more rants!



  • Hey Garg, ask Djensen if you can put “wiseass” as your forum title lol

    But yeah, you two really like eachother.


  • 2016 2015 '10

    The only thing I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London, it becomes increasingly problematic for Germany to use naval blockers.  The intended effect of strengthening Russia on land might end up weakening Germany at sea.  Maybe adding 2 armor to Russia would be a better solution.

    That said, the changes suggested would lead to a more balanced game.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London

    They should have a rule for no Soviet pieces in her allies territories and vice versa. Stalin would never allow either to happen and didnt.


  • 2019 2018

    I agree that no more changes should be made, but I am curious as to why adding a Russian bomber magically balances the game?



  • IL is correct on that issue.

    Any major house rule package for 1940 has to have rules that treat the USSR as an independent faction.

    The only cooperation would be lend/lease, and the western allies would be able to turn of the faucet if the USSR doesn’t play along with their agenda.
    On that note….the rules must also allow for the USSR to have the option to annex neutrals, or other allied territories, if it goes rouge, and collect IPCs that way, instead of through lend lease National Objectives.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Righto my comrade.

    The tradeoff is lend lease, which for whatever reason the game made it into one of the Soviet NO’s

    Id rather have them get something better than 5 IPC a turn ( perhaps about 10 IPC) and total prohibition of Soviet mix with UK/USA land and air units.

    Soviets should have separate victory conditions from UK/ USA along with THE AXIS. Germany and Italy were bound fates, Japan had their own goals not related to what Europe was doing.

    Thats the only major flaw in the game at this point. I support those changes along with Russian Bomber and UK Infantry


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I’ve always advocated that Global 1940 should have been called Axis, Allies, and Comintern.  With 3 distinct parties vying for victory [2 parties not in open conflict obviously, but always watching the balance;)]


  • TripleA '12

    Axis, Allies, and Comintern

    I quite like that idea.



  • Well, someone whip up some house rules then….



  • @Zhukov44:

    The only thing I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London, it becomes increasingly problematic for Germany to use naval blockers.  The intended effect of strengthening Russia on land might end up weakening Germany at sea.  Maybe adding 2 armor to Russia would be a better solution.

    That said, the changes suggested would lead to a more balanced game.

    True, but remember, that bomber can’t get to London before turn 3 or 4 or whenever Germany attacks them first which isn’t until round 3-4.  2 tanks makes little impact in respect to the dozens of land stacks between Germany and Russia that are built in the Eastern front.  Thats 2 tanks out of scores of land units versus one bomber that can make more of a dent which is what is needed for the Allies to gain some equality over the long run.



  • @cond1024:

    I agree that no more changes should be made, but I am curious as to why adding a Russian bomber magically balances the game?

    Not saying it does but it bring you a lot closer than the 6-10 IPC bids we are seeing consistently now.  Out of several little tweeks to help try to reach equality the Russian bomber makes the most sense.  It can balance and it is a unit people orginally wanted to see included.  All major powers have one except Russia.

    It is also the most intriguing option b/c of what you can do with it.  In a Barbarossa, it can pick off key targets help Russian ground units in several ways.  In a Sealion, watch out!!!, Russia can build a second one!!!  A good tradeoff along with the Africa $$$ from the NO for losing a vital partner in the Allies (UK- London).

    When this idea came up briefly near the end of the Alpha+3 project people were salivating at the idea.  Unfortunately and regretfully, I shot it down b/c I thought it would give Allies too much strength.  Now after playing and watching other games, it is clear that the Russian bomber would help and satisfy many players who not only want to see the piece entered in the game but also regain the best balance possible.  It piece’s placement on Moscow at the beginning of the game is also very intriguing- oops, I think I already mentioned that. 😄



  • I posted this on Larry’s site so I thought I would share it here also:

    "…the Russian bomber would have a profound effect- more on the Europe side than the Pacific side. That is why when the idea came out near the end of the Alpha project I was strongly opposed to it.

    However, many Alpha+3 games are tending to give a $6- $10 or $12 bid cash to the Allies-- and that is WITH the original Alpha+3 which INCLUDES the extra Brit inf on Egypt.

    After scores of games played with Alpha+3 (essentially 2nd ed) setup here is what is happening:

    Since Axis goes first they will determine the opening.

    There are 2 main lines in Global- Sealion and Barbarossa. Every other strategy falls under these two openings in some way or another. Italy will assist and follow Germany’s lead as they work together, Japan will follow up by either attacking on J1 (a sharp yet very playable gambit that works) or attack on J2 (standard). J3 and J4 attack have now been proven to fail as they give the Allies too much time to build and contain Japan.

    Sealion games- whether baited into it or purposely directed for it, Sealion happens on G3. There are times when the naval battles and such don’t go well for Germany and they have to abort the mission but most of the time they seem to have a decent shot at it. Usaully a successful SBR on G2 precedes the assualt on G3 softening up the landing. Germany can have anywhere between a 45-95% chance of success depending on the circumstances.

    Britain can do 2 things, either turtle and hope to tharwt off the Germans or at the very least make them lose tons of units OR if they think the odds are against them they can half-turtle and use their navy and airforce in the Med to Taranto- suckerpunching Italy’s navy. Taranto is almost a standard move now b/c it is proven that in the longrun if the Allies don’t do this Italy will become a major power not a minor one.

    In doing Taranto, you give up London though as those aircraft are needed to ensure a win in the Med. So the Allies can cripple Itlay and give up London or turtle London and give up the Med- not an easy choice.

    When players give up London for an advantage in the Med the games tend to be long and dragged out. Russia with the help of the NatObjs will become stronger making $50 a turn or so. They will own own some Italian and Axis neutrals in MidEast and Africa to get some bonus cash and make a solid front in the East Poland region. In the longrun, it is difficult for Russian and US to make it on their own without a UK players turn, however, they can drag the game out and make it exhausting for the Axis player to get the VC win they need.

    When players give up the Med and turtle London, they are not always guaranteed London will survive (although their chances are much better- good calculation is needed at this point) but they will at least deplete Germany forces to get the capital and maybe even repel the invasion if Germany did not “count the cost”. However, the Med is then completley under the control of the Italian who rack up nice bonus cash and begin to become a production power complete with a solid navy. Allies will have a hard time cracking the Med. This also can be a long grueling game.

    In both of these situations, the Axis have proven to outproduce the Allies and seal a win thus forcing players to consider and play with a bid in the following games. A bid of 6-12 IPC is usually given to the Allies.

    Barbarossa games- These tend to focus on securing the Med, trying to strap Brits to the island and going balls to the walls on Russia. Japan plan comes in very handy here as they can send aircraft and such to support in middle rounds.

    What about Japan???

    Japan can easily support a Barbarossa or a Sealion and it is discoveries in the Japanese strategies that have tipped the scale in favor of the Axis in most games, in which players now require a bid to go to the Allies.

    Japan will either attack on J1 or J2 for the reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. They can gun hard for India and take it between rounds 3-6 or choke out Indian, ANAZAC, and Chinese economies while getting into a “building” war with the US always threatening a quick 6VC win. Japan can indirectly help the Euro Axis greatly by either forcing the US to engage in the Pacific by going after India hard or spend tons on navy forcing the US to do the same while threatening Honolulu, Sydney and/or Calcutta.

    It is also hard for the US to liberate London when Japan is ready to pounce on a quick 6VC win if the US spends too much in Europe. It can be very tricky for the US on how much and where to spend its cash. It must spend wisely every round knowing that those units won’t see the front for another round or 2 whether Pacific or Europe.

    The Russian Bomber and the Getting back the Brit Inf in Egypt- The game is on a $6-$12 bid WITH the extra Brit Inf. So that is a given that we put the Brit inf back in Egypt. How does the Russian bomber help???

    1. In Sealion games it will give the Allies (specifically the Russians) the punch needed to keep Axis on its toes. In Sealion games Russian WILL have the flexibility to buy a second bomber. This is pretty fair considering UK-London is out of the game- at least for a long while anyway.

    2. In Barborossa games Russia will not have the opprotunity to buy a second bomber but it will help many ways as far as can openers and naval pot shots as well as an SBR if needed.

    3. The option to help the Allies in the Pacific is always there too although this will be a little tougher b/c of the turn order- Japan is always after Russia.

    4. As many have wanted before- every major power has a bomber except for Russia- just doesn’t look right and now that bid money is consistently needed for the Allies, the Russian bomber makes perfect sense now."



  • I would even go as far as to say that not only do we need…

    1 Brit inf back in Egypt but also…
    1Russian bomber along with either… 1SS in z98 or 2inf in London


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    That is an excellent piece of writing and work, thank you Questioneer.



  • Thanks Wittman, just trying to summarize the trends- what has been happening since Final Alpha in March at least among a good portion of AA players here.

    Also some more tidbits…

    Here is a poll taken in late May- 3 months after Final Alpha. Notice that the Russian bomber and UK sub are the mostly popular changes. Today as you watch games online the UK sub in z98 is the most popular bid and the Russian bomber is the piece most wish the game had.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/ind … ic=27376.0

    Here is a current poll and although 50% believe the game is balanced, the other 50% believe the game is slighted toward the Axis and that the Allies need a bid of $6 or more. This is after 6 months of play. BTW this INCLUDES the Brit inf on Egypt. Notice how many people think the Axis have the advantage- 0%

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/ind … ic=28609.0


  • TripleA

    italian bomber is gay


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Well you’re welcome for it cow.

    I proudly made the case to get that piece in the game!

    Deal with it.


  • TripleA

    you said it not me.



  • I am not against the idea of the Russian bomber.  Something needs to be done to beef up the allies a little bit, but this particular solution needs to be tried out to see what folks can make of it.  It has a lot of potential.

    For instance I see one scenario that I know I will do in any game I play as Russia if I have that bomber. It has become pretty common for Russia to send a mech to Turkmenistan and UK to activate East Persia on round 1.  In the event that Germany attacks Russia on G2 the mech swoops in to activate Central Persia while 2 Soviet infantry walk in to North Persia from Caucasus.  Often they bring a tank.  The reason for the tank is that without it, they would only have the 2 infantry from North Persia, plus the 2 infantry and 1 mech from East Persia when they attack Iraq next turn for the big NO money.  Five 1s versus three 2s has only a 66% chance of working but throw in the tank and it goes to 96% and with less losses.  Another way is to park a fighter or tac in Caucasus.  Either way Russia gets the big bonus but the cost is that a very valuable unit is put out of position, and they don’t have a lot of heavy hitter units to throw around.  The tank in Iraq takes several turns to get back to the front, and even a fighter or tac will have to land in Caucasus and be useless for a turn at a time when its desperately needed elsewhere.  But now suppose Russia starts out with a bomber that they deploy to Volgagrad so it can hit Iraq R3 and land back in Volgagrad, with 3 planes, both tanks and whatever artillery and infantry they have been building all stacked up menacingly in Bryansk.  Pretty scarey for Germany - maybe enough to make them pause to gather reinforcements before plunging into Belarus/North Ukraine, and allow Russia another turn to build infantry……  So my beef with the Russian bomber is that it has so much range that Russia will be able to hit Iraq with it and then return it to the front ready for service the very next turn.  They even get to avoid parking a tank or fighter/tac in Caucasus on R2.  It gives a major bump to Russia’s counterattack threat potential for a few turns and they get Iraq kind of for free.

    Then there are the gamey things a guy could do with that bomber that would make everything too flakey, like naval can openers in z94 or z16, bombing West Germany airbase to stop scramble and allow US/UK landing in Denmark/Berlin, stuff like that.  Not to mention the mayhem it could cause in a sealion game if it goes to China with the Siberians.  Anything we can abuse we will abuse.


  • TripleA

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26960.0

    @ younggrasshopper for my japan stuff. I don’t call J1 dow a gambit, it is a good opener (mixed criticism though), it is more entertaining according to the feedback. I see J1 DOW frequently on triple a, not so much on the forum… but I think it has to do with the nature of playing a live game in that you are trying to resolve a game in one sitting.

    I would do J1 DOW on the forum, if I ever got to play Japan, unless I had a bunch of russians lined up for me in amur @_@.



  • Guys,  I am retired USAF and I have never seen a gay Bomber Aircraft in my life.  Typo error?
    Where did that dumb phrase come from?
    WARRIOR888


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    @WARRIOR888:

    Guys,  I am retired USAF and I have never seen a gay Bomber Aircraft in my life.  Typo error?
    Where did that dumb phrase come from?
    WARRIOR888

    YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF THE ENOLA GAY?

    lol…



  • Warrior -  the dumb phrase is courtesy of Cow; he likes to shoot his mouth off. Don’t worry, though. He normally has what he believes to be a perfectly reasonable justification for using offensive terms.  :roll: If you just sit tight, I’m sure this situation will be no exception.



  • Enola Gay is a Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber, named after Enola Gay Tibbets, mother of the pilot, then-Colonel (later Brigadier General) Paul Tibbets.[2] On 6 August 1945, during the final stages of World War II, it became the first aircraft to drop an atomic bomb as a weapon of war. The bomb, code-named “Little Boy”, was targeted at the city of Hiroshima, Japan, and caused unprecedented destruction.

    WARRIOR888


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 21
  • 2
  • 6
  • 6
  • 25
  • 2
  • 7
  • 17
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

43
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts