Redesign 1941 Setup on v5 1942.2 San Francisco Experiment


  • 2017 '16

    @Argothair:

    All right, that all makes much more sense – I’m sorry I criticized your methods so harshly. I am under some stress at work right now, and I may have been trying to take some of it out on you.

    How Germany Can Expect to Win From 1941

    In the 1942.2 OOB setup, Germany has 29 infantry and 3 artillery. Of those, Russia typically kills off 6 inf, 2 art (West Russia & Ukraine attack) before Germany even gets to move. So Germany will usually start G1 with 23 inf + 1 art = 24 walking units.

    In your San Fran Alpha 0.5 1941 setup, Germany starts with 35 infantry and 6 artillery, and Germany gets to go first, so Germany will always start G1 with 35 + 6 = 41 walking units – almost twice as many walking units as the 1942 starting position.

    Similarly, in 1942.2 OOB, Germany starts with 4 subs and 7 planes. It has two tiny fleets with one transport each, but they are very badly exposed, and Germany must take drastic measures to keep either of them alive until G2, let alone G3.

    In SF Alpha 0.5 1941, Germany starts with 10 subs and 10 warplanes, plus a pair of reasonably well-protected fleets (BB + DD + tran in Baltic, BB + 2 CA + 2 DD + 2 tran in Med).

    I think tanks come out roughly the same.

    So Germany is “ahead” by about 180 IPCs’ worth of units in the 1941 setup relative to the 1942 setup. Yes, Germany has more tasks to accomplish (more British fleets to kill, more Russian fleets to kill, more Russian planes to kill, more Russian territories to take, etc.), but even allowing for serious losses (let’s say you lose 4 subs and 4 planes on G1 – that is a loss of $64) and even if it takes you 2 full turns just to get to the 1942 front lines (a loss of at most $10 on G1 and $5 on G2) that still leaves Germany well ahead of the game.

    As you say, the Allies also have advantages…more starting troops in Africa, faster transports, a better-defended China, factories in ANZAC, etc. But Germany has enough “extra value” left over in its starting setup to have a fair shot at counteracting these advantages, I think.

    Setting up tank battles

    I did not fully understand this paragraph you wrote:

    So, here is what I realized, if we want to convey the idea that Germany is a well prepared, well organized army, it should not be obvious to hard core player that you have to loose you costly units almost on starting G2 to make gains in Soviet union and more incomes. It is like you are fighting for 8 IPCs swing while you are wasting around 30 more or less IPCs TUVs to maintain your invasion in second row of TTs in Soviet Union. A bit unsound.

    This sounds interesting. Can you say more about this?

    In general, I approve of the idea of trying to show that germany was organized for war and russia was not. I am still unclear on how you want to do that, but I would like to learn more.

    By the way, if you want to experiment with switching out many of germany’s tanks for extra infantry, we can explore that together – I have calmed down now and I can see why that would be interesting. We may decide to abandon that fork and go back to v5 or v6 or even earlier, but I do think it’s worth at least testing a version of that. I may try to create a radically new setup myself along those lines, that you can test if you wish.

    I’m glad you like the idea: Germany organized, Russia not.

    If you want to create the V7 setup, I would be very grateful because I will not have much time until Saturday.

    Thanks for really make the count on Germany numbers.
    I never thought there was that much Infantry.

    If Japan do not invade it, Soviet Union will get probably more or less: R0 32 PUs, R1 26 PUs, R2 24 PUs, R3 17 PUs.
    So, by R4 there will be near 100 PUs of unit added on board to resist Germany.
    It means, around 30 Infantry to oppose German army in Soviet Union to added to Soviet units in Karelia, Caucasus and all TTs around Moscow.
    This may help find the level of defense which Germany have to fight.

    About what I said more or less correctly, I meant that the best offence, which doesn’t need to wait for slower fodder to catch frontal units to attack the next row of TTs in Soviet, is mainly built of Infantry and a few Artillery. If you can always wipe the enemy in a single combat round, you minimized damage on your side (here what are useful planes and Tank).
    Eventually, all your Infantry units will wear off and Tanks / Artillerys will be exposed to attrition attack (strafing strategy) or an annihilation battle reducing as much as possible German offensive power. But what Russia will built, will be available next round to fight. Not the case for Germany, unless TP being short cut (Med fleet) or purchasing planes.

    The minimal to win is to have a last tank to capture Moscow, while all your aircrafts and all fodders will be destroyed.
    Until you get to Moscow, as long as Soviet have enough Infantry (with air support), he will trade German’s Art and Tank for a profit.

    This is the general dynamics, like a wave on the shore which finally breaks at the end.

    What is the key against Russia is to oppose an Infantry stack defending @2 against russian Infantry attacking @1. In such case, battle will be difficult but TUVs swing at best will be even. Usually when this happen, I have to fall back one TT with Russia until I get enough Infantry in my stack (combined with all planes and Tanks) to make some strafing (in hope that my big hitter will hit the mark on first combat round) then retreat. If there is no opportunity to have more russian Infantry than German in a given TT, I will have to take a defensive stance and reinforced if I can no more retreat.

    Germany have three zones to fill with units: north, centre and south. This also reduces the main stack of German’s Infantry (because you will not expose a single Tank in a TT, if you have other means to control it).

    Destroying German’s artillery and Tank and loose Soviet Infantry is the main objective for Russia.

    As long as German’s army have a lot of fodder, Germany can marches on toward Moscow. Then, have to stop to replenish his front, then continuing with the new influx of Infantry.

    It is at this condition, than a final showdown with Russia will be a real conquest (if Germany only loose Infantry and keep intact his Tank and planes).

    My paradigm shift is to give minimal Tank and Arty on start but a lot of Infantry. Reinforcement will follow, if Germany purchase more Tank and planes.
    For example, let’s suppose for G1 and G2, the main issue for Germany is to decide where to give support with Tank and Art.
    In the worst case, he may have to rely upon planes to reach a maximum punch to limit the number of defending round and rolls.

    However, Infantry attack rolls are less reliable and the more there is combat round, the more you loose attacking units. (Japan in Kiangsu against Anwhei can provides the model I got in my mind.)

    From another aspect:
    To make things more interesting as purchaser for Germany, you will prefer to have to buy warships, Art, Tank or planes.
    This is only possible if you have a lot of Infantry but lacking of heavy hitter to support these units you will buy them to increase your attack factor for your Infantry.

    I don’t think I’m very clear. I got the intuition but I need more time to get familiar with this idea and be able to better understand and explain it.

    P.S. I see no offence, our method sometimes use pictures instead of more words. And without enough infos about intents and other reasons to put something here or there, it can be irritating.


  • 2017 '16

    @Argothair:

    Soviet Tanks in Western China

    I think totally closing off Western China to prevent Soviet tanks there is overkill. I like having a small, limited connection b/w Russia and China. It’s not easy to cross the Gobi Desert, but it’s not impossible, either…if China had totally fallen, then that would have provided Japan with some access to central Siberia.

    Victory Cities

    I am not very concerned about Rio being a “gift” to the USA. First of all, the point of a victory city is not necessarily to be a target that both sides can fight over with equal chances. Romania/Ploesti is a gift to Germany; Manila is a gift to Japan, etc. That’s fine.

    Second, both Germany and Japan have some chance to reach Rio in the endgame – if Japan conquers ANZAC, then Argentina is the natural next target, and Brazil comes next after Argentina. Similarly, if Germany takes Gibraltar, then a move to French West Africa to liberate / reinforce the Vichy factory is natural, and FWA is one move from Brazil. This will not happen in most games, but it will happen in some.

    Third, just because Brazil is easy for Allies to grab does not mean that Brazil is automatic for Allies to grab. Yes, the Allies can take Brazil if they want it, but the point is, they have to. The Allies have to spend at least some resources taking and holding South America, or else that affects the victory situation on the map. This is as it should be.

    I’m willing to move Ottawa -> Rekyavik by way of compromise, but Rio stays.

    Likewise, I am not sure Truk is needed when we already have Manila, Honolulu, and Panama City, but I will add Truk as VC #25 if it is important to you.

    No need to hurry on these ones.
    My reason is mainly practical, to harmonize Barney VTs appearing on Global Map (40 VTs) and 1942.2 Map (20 and 30 VTs) now 24 VTs.

    In fact, my very first suggestion, if I remember correctly was 24 VTs and included Rio. But this was before discussions which help expand the list to 20-30-40.
    Rio is after all, the only VTs on that Continental mass.


  • 2017 '16

    Here is a few differences I noticed by just changing most German Tanks which were West of Poland and Romania into Infantry (1 Tank = 2 Infantry) then placed: 5 in Poland and 5 in Romania.
    Germany gets only 6 Tanks in Europe to start with.

    1- More variety in purchase: my first purchase as Germany have to be mixed, Germany is craving for heavy and fast moving hitter (Tanks and planes) but if not building Infantry, the initial wave will fade off exposing Tank and Artillery. In addition, if you choose Navy on G1, it is less compromising: you can deal with no additional Infantry influx for G2 assault.

    2- A large increase in Infantry which may hold off Russian counter longer (think about infantry stack reinforced by fighter), leave room to strategically opt for Sea Lion instead of singly focus on Moscow.

    3- Anecdotal: it took more than just 1 round to get rid of Ukraine, which implied 2 more Infantry loss. An Infantry stack survives longer but have less punch on opening combat round. This creates an opportunity for the attacker to choose different pressure point according to which battle you put into planes and Tank.

    4- 2 Infantry are less mobile than 1 Tank, it means more predictability on the Russian front about where can be the major attack, it gives more time to react. All Soviet army stack doesn’t need to fall back everywhere, only where the main German stack deadzoned a TT. And sometimes, 2 Infantry @1 against 1 Infantry @2 bring interesting not so predictable TUV swing according to the first attack round.

    5- German army made of mostly Infantry (and art back up) better radicalized the choice between South, Center or Northern Army group. The way German player’s split his stack give very different strategic opportunities, for both sides, and increase the impact of the decision. Do you stack all your army in Western Russia, at the risk of being almost destroyed by Soviet? Do you go north, so Caucasus Infantry cannot easily foddered an attack on your forces? Do you go south, and be stalled longer because German Baltic Army cannot reinforced Ukraine but have to fight Leningrad.

    6- It gives a sense of slow moving in G1 and G2, your armies are massive but going one path is compromising. With a lot of tank, you feel the Eastern Front is mobile and about moving Tank where is Russian Pocket resistances. IMO, the Infantry push gives a better feel of how Germany is a bulldozer. Later G4-5, there will be less units on board and it will be anyway this kind of mobile combat. The only time it is possible to do different is on opening set-up.

    7- I made a test where it was possible to place G2 all Germans Infantry and Tank in Western Russia (while Karelia and Ukraine were captured). Exactly as 1941 december last attack on Moscow.
    In that case, Russian stack was in Caucasus and R2 attack West Russia with Moscow reinforcement.
    It was a 97% odds to destroyed everything, but saving only 2 planes and 1 T-34 Tank.
    Both sides have to rebuilt forces but it clears up Eastern Front.
    IMO, it gives an historical play-pattern. You may play otherwise because it all depends about how Germany want to use his Infantry stack, on offense (as fodder) or defense (with double combat values) but with no plane reinforcement? Both can suit players.

    8- It provides a real change for Russia to have more Tanks and less Infantry and even more than 2 planes depending on G1 decisions. It can be a defensive play (using @2 Infantry advantage) or offensive (including strafing) on specific German stack. It is now possible because of 5 available Tanks on beginning and at least 1 Fg+1TcB, this 22 attacks points can make a big difference according to where Soviet player apply pressure.

    9- It brings a real paradigm shift on the usual way of Eastern front depiction, for once, and traditional OOB game flow, as a second real original change. This change seems very promising. Even if it needs more adjustment to find the balanced level of Infantry and Tanks on both sides.

    Moscow is 4 TTs from Germany. An invincible army would take G4 to finish off Russia. If G1 is unopposed, I believe you may suppose 2 Soviet counter, delaying to G6 to get the epic fight. This provide at least 5 reinforcement rounds.

    Now I’m actually pushing the envelop further by adding more Infantry (Norway and France and NWE) and Art (on G and Romania, but less Inf) and less Tank. Bringing more Infantry, to give opportunity and time to either built Tanks or TPs according to Moscow must fall or London must fall.
    Infantry on Western far side will take much longer to reach Eastern front anyway (same time as being built up). The point is giving Germany essentially Infantry and few Tanks, allows player to choose what he want to do both strategically (goal) and tactically (means).

    The idea is to let Germany purchase pattern being more : G1-G2 costlier units, G3-G4 mixed, later game Infantry (fortress Europe).

    Looking about Barbarossa myths I got some numbers:

    Myth 5) The vast numerical superiority enjoyed by the Soviets
    Nazi propaganda nurtured the image of Germans fighting against innumerable masses from the East, but this is just a racist propaganda. In actual fact, the war on the Eastern Front in 1941 was characterised by a Soviet inferiority in pure numbers. On 22 June 1941, the four Soviet western military districts between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea had 2.3 million men, opposed to nearly 4.5 million Axis troops. The Wehrmacht had amassed 3.35 million troops. To this the Romanian army contributed 600,000, and in the north, Finland had already mobilised its army and could muster 530,000 men.

    When the Red Army counter-attacked at Moscow in December 1941, the Soviet numerical inferiority was even larger. Soviet strength returns in archives show that on 1 December 1941, the Soviets were able to muster 576,500 soldiers and 574 tanks against German Army Group Centre which at the time had between 1.9 and 1.2 million troops with 1,800 tanks and assault guns. The Germans not only enjoyed a three-fold numerical superiority in tanks, but of the Soviet tanks employed against them at Moscow, only around 30 per cent were T-34s or KVs, with the remainder being completely obsolete tankettes.

    As the war continued, the Germans gradually lost their numerical superiority which reflects the greater Soviet industrial capacity but their most brilliant victories in 1941 were achieved with a convincing numerical superiority.

    http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/operation-barbarossa-9-popular-myths-busted


  • 2017 '16

    About Norway, it is still an issue.
    On G1, German navy have to fight Cruiser and Sub.
    On UK1 and US1, it is possible to launch a Norway invasion and block drastically Baltic Navy.
    G2, you have to retake. If UK2 or US2 not doing anything, it is only G3 you may get out.
    But, Norway becomes a gamey way (not that historical) to protect UK’s fleet.

    M3 TP and Cruiser essentially makes Norway the first juicy target to help Russia for Allies.
    I don’t think it is necessary to increase the incentive on it.

    For all my play-tests, it reveals as an hindrance to play a Battle of Atlantic. I cannot launch any Subs built by Germany from Baltic.

    At least, I’m testing in Germany Infantry push increasing to 4 Infantry both Norway (+1 AAA) and Finland. Might help to not get too early this Norway invasion. If, I move Infantry out of Norway, Germany will be responsible if Allies attack it.

    What is working for sure, is making Norway a strategic key point you need to protect Allies from Baltic fleet. Or Germany need to hold if he wants to destroy Allies fleet around UK.

    It is still possible to built Sub with NWE IC, but they are vulnerable to an immediate counter from Air attack. Baltic BB allows to shield Subs built in this SZ.


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    About Norway, it is still an issue.
    On G1, German navy have to fight Cruiser and Sub.
    On UK1 and US1, it is possible to launch a Norway invasion and block drastically Baltic Navy.
    G2, you have to retake. If UK2 or US2 not doing anything, it is only G3 you may get out.
    But, Norway becomes a gamey way (not that historical) to protect UK’s fleet.

    M3 TP and Cruiser essentially makes Norway the first juicy target to help Russia for Allies.
    I don’t think it is necessary to increase the incentive on it.

    For all my play-tests, it reveals as an hindrance to play a Battle of Atlantic. I cannot launch any Subs built by Germany from Baltic.

    At least, I’m testing in Germany Infantry push increasing to 4 Infantry both Norway (+1 AAA) and Finland. Might help to not get too early this Norway invasion. If, I move Infantry out of Norway, Germany will be responsible if Allies attack it.

    What is working for sure, is making Norway a strategic key point you need to protect Allies from Baltic fleet. Or Germany need to hold if he wants to destroy Allies fleet around UK.

    It is still possible to built Sub with NWE IC, but they are vulnerable to an immediate counter from Air attack. Baltic BB allows to shield Subs built in this SZ.

    I made a few tests.
    As you first suggested, I would try to allow Baltic Navy to cross strait when Norway is Axis controlled.
    NWE should not be relevant.

    It needs to edit when crossing with German Navy while NWE is Allies control.

    I made a lot of changes in Europe.
    I tested many ways.
    Here is below where I am.
    Maybe, just focus on Germany, Soviet, UK and US on ETO.
    Unless we feel we find a set-up which fit, I’m not sure it worth plays Japan too.

    I really increase units variety for Soviet Union. Even Karelia gets a Fighter and Caucasus a Tank.
    As you wished much earlier along this thread, it allows for a weak counter-strike strafe, which can turn lucky for Soviet and wipe a lot of Infantry. It depends a lot on how many infantry survived the first assault and how Germany’s player distribute Infantry units and the single AAA between Belorussia and Ukraine. Even if moving hard against either Karelia or Caucasus, the remaining forces may attack from the other un-assailed TT.

    Germany has more difficult choices on this one IMO.
    If all in against Russia, UK gets a working fleet. If UK’s fleet a priority, then a few planes will survive to R1. There is virtually no chance that Germany gets all targets, unless being lucky and taking many risks.

    That is why I added an undefended (last of the war) TP in the famous Greenland Gap. It is only meant to left the u-boat commander to decide whether or not UK’s warships are a priority. Dispatching 1 Sub against this lonely TP might as well meant the UK’s BB or 1 TP and 2 DDs in Easter Canada SZ to survive because of lack of enough Subs as attack or fodder…

    The Mid-Atlantic Gap is a geographical term attributed to an undefended area beyond the reach of land-based RAF Coastal Command antisubmarine (A/S) aircraft during the Battle of the Atlantic in the Second World War. It is frequently known as The Black Pit, as well as the Atlantic Gap, Air Gap, Greenland Gap, or just “the Gap”. This resulted in heavy merchant shipping losses to U-boats. The gap was eventually closed in May 1943, as growing numbers of VLR Liberators (Very Long Range models) and escort carriers became available, and as basing problems were addressed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap

    Hope you will like it.

    P.S. I also changed units from Japan to Formosa to follow history and make relevant to pick units from Formosa instead of Japan:

    Both the Japanese Army and the Japanese Navy developed Taiwan from a military sense. The ports of Keelung (Kirun or Kiirun in Japanese) and Takau (Takao in Japanese, now renamed Kaohsiung in Mandarin Chinese) were originally developed by the Japanese into major commercial ports but by this time were also served as main naval bases; at the opening chapters of the war, many of the amphibious missions against British Malaya and Philippine Islands were launched from these two ports.

    http://ww2db.com/country/taiwan

    SanFran_1941_Alpha09Baron.png
    SanFran_1941_Alpha09Baron.tsvg


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    Looking at this now. Have you tested a German opening that pulls the Libya troops up to Caucasus on G1 while attacking Belorussia, Poland, Ukraine, and West Russia along with the Home Fleet near Scotland and Task Force G near Gibraltar? I think all of those battles are quite safe for Germany. Germany loses about three planes and ends with 30+ infantry, 3 tanks, and 8 planes within two spaces of Moscow, whereas Russia only has about 10 inf, 2 tank, 2 planes left to defend. Russia can take back Caucasus on R1 but cannot stop Germany from stacking and keeping Caucasus on G2. Meanwhile, UK has 2 transports and 2 destroyers…not enough to build a fleet that can survive an air attack on G2. UK can make nuisance raids on western europe, but Germany can reconquer as needed with starting troops from Italy. A UK3 fleet that gets set to invade France on UK4 is too late; Moscow should fall by G4.

    Am I miscalculating?


  • 2017 '16

    @Argothair:

    Looking at this now. Have you tested a German opening that pulls the Libya troops up to Caucasus on G1 while attacking Belorussia, Poland, Ukraine, and West Russia along with the Home Fleet near Scotland and Task Force G near Gibraltar? I think all of those battles are quite safe for Germany. Germany loses about three planes and ends with 30+ infantry, 3 tanks, and 8 planes within two spaces of Moscow, whereas Russia only has about 10 inf, 2 tank, 2 planes left to defend. Russia can take back Caucasus on R1 but cannot stop Germany from stacking and keeping Caucasus on G2. Meanwhile, UK has 2 transports and 2 destroyers…not enough to build a fleet that can survive an air attack on G2. UK can make nuisance raids on western europe, but Germany can reconquer as needed with starting troops from Italy. A UK3 fleet that gets set to invade France on UK4 is too late; Moscow should fall by G4.

    Am I miscalculating?

    I’m not quite sure to understand all your moves.
    If Karelia and Archangel are not attacked on G1, Soviet gets 3 Fgs and 1 TcB available.
    Taking Caucasus is not guaranteed, it depends on how many planes G wants to put in.
    Usually it means loosing at least 1, sometimes 2 planes to capture with 1 Tank.

    UKs seems to have 3 Destroyers available, not 2.

    What do you mean by Task Force G near Gibraltar?
    All Italian Navy have to attack Soviet Cruiser and Sub in Black Sea to allow an amphibious on Caucasus.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    OK, you are right that I was underestimating Russia’s remaining forces – but I think I am still right about the overall strategy. I know that I made some mistakes for the Allies in this saved game, especially with unnecessarily losing some British transports to German subs, and I definitely would have needed to keep a couple of fighters and a couple of tanks back to defend Germany on the last turn (or maybe just build more infantry and fewer tanks on turn 3), but I took Russia on turn 4 with 24 German units left over – it was not close. Take a look! See how you would have defended Russia better with your setup.

    My overall concern is that with this starting setup, you can take your starting German infantry and march to Moscow without ever needing to slow down – you can send a few infantry reinforcements via the Baltic and the Med, as you go, and you can send tank reinforcements that can catch up with the stack before they’re needed, so your infantry stack that starts in Berlin at setup is in the Baltic states at the end of G1, in Karelia at the end of G2, in Archangel at the end of G3, and in Moscow at the end of G4 – continuous motion toward the goal. Something needs to interfere with that for the game to be balanced/interesting.

    Note that to save time, I did not play the Japanese or the Americans at all. I placed 100% of British income in Canada / UK and sent it all to kill Germany, with zero loss of British income from southern colonies, and I allowed Russia to withdraw 100% of its Siberian troops with zero loss of Siberian territory – I figure Japan and America are just busy with each other in the Pacific and can’t spare a thought for anything else.

    dead moscow.png
    SanFran_1941_Alpha09Baron_test1.tsvg


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    Oh, and per your request, here is a new .xml file with the VC in Iceland instead of Ottawa, and with only control of Norway required to pass through the Kiel Canal (control of NW Europe is ignored).

    San Fran 1941 Baron alpha v0.9.xml


  • 2017 '16

    @Argothair:

    Oh, and per your request, here is a new .xml file with the VC in Iceland instead of Ottawa, and with only control of Norway required to pass through the Kiel Canal (control of NW Europe is ignored).

    Thank you very much.
    I’m working on your last report and trying to fix something out.
    I made many tries with your opening on Caucasus.
    Beyond 4th round, it is quite a stretch to foresee where UK can be.
    I assumed that if Russia can repel such 4th round assault, it is better than previous settings.
    Soviet Union gets a lot of action and many tactical choices whether to conquer or strafe a given TT. It is a real cat and mouse with Germany.

    I prefer giving more Infantry and less Tank to Germany. It makes Germany’s purchase much more variable than before. Each turn, at least 2 Tanks are bought for Eastern Front.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    Well, I agree that it is a challenge to predict exactly how far the UK can get against Germany, partly because it’s hard to play honestly against yourself, and partly because there are new tactical possibilities in this setup, and partly because we are leaving Japan and the USA out of our tests, and that will inevitably influence things.

    I also agree that if Germany uses the Caucasus opening and fails to take Moscow on G4, then Germany will run very thin on troops and the Allies will be in an excellent position.

    I don’t care very much one way or the other if you want to start Germany with mostly infantry and only a few tanks. There are pros and cons on both sides.

    What I do care about is balance. I would be very, very surprised if this setup turns out to be balanced. I think you have made Germany much too powerful relative to Russia. I think Germany will be able to take Moscow on G4 in at least 90% of the games unless the USA and the UK both go heavy in the Atlantic – but if the UK and the USA goes heavy in the Atlantic, then Japan will quickly be able to take India, and that will create its own problems for the Allies.

    I can think of a couple of ways to adjust the balance. One is to add a couple of Russian infantry to the Caucasus, so that it becomes hugely unprofitable for Germany to attack the Caucasus on G1. That would be straightforward, but boring – it essentially removes one of Germany’s options without creating any new ones.

    Another way is to add more Russian infantry to Moscow, so that Moscow is more likely to hold on G4. Again, the problem with adding infantry to Moscow is that they can only do one thing – sit there and wait for the attack. Extra infantry might help Russia stack West Russia for longer, or trade the Caucasus longer, but mostly they are just there to guard the capital.

    Another way is to remove a few German starting infantry, so that losses from an early push will be riskier and will destabilize Germany’s attacks at an earlier point. This is interesting, but swingy – if you happen to take early casualties as Germany, then you might get stuck turtling and have to hope you can hold the line until Japan becomes a monster, and if you happen to take very few early casualties, then you can just march right into Moscow on G4.

    The last way is to build more resilience into Russia’s “second line of defense.” If there are some more starting troops in Archangel and West Russia and Kazakh, then even if Germany takes Leningrad and/or Stalingrad on G1, Russia will still have the option to counter-attack.

    I realize that historically, Russia took enormous losses on the front lines in the first months of the war, and was not able to counter-attack effectively. But I am not really interested in forcing that result on the players and turning into a sacred script. In my opinion, this would simply transfer one of the biggest wastes of the classic versions (the scripted destruction of the British home fleet by the German air force on the first turn) from sea to land. Every game will see the scripted destruction of Russian tanks and planes by the German infantry in Eastern Europe. Why put all those pieces on the board only to take them off again before the Allies make any decisions? It is a waste. Every piece should be the subject of an interesting decision, or else there is no point in having the piece, and we can speed up the game and keep things simpler by doing without the piece. Or at least, that is my philosophy. I don’t know whether it is also your philosophy.


  • 2017 '16

    @Argothair:

    Well, I agree that it is a challenge to predict exactly how far the UK can get against Germany, partly because it’s hard to play honestly against yourself, and partly because there are new tactical possibilities in this setup, and partly because we are leaving Japan and the USA out of our tests, and that will inevitably influence things.

    I also agree that if Germany uses the Caucasus opening and fails to take Moscow on G4, then Germany will run very thin on troops and the Allies will be in an excellent position.

    I don’t care very much one way or the other if you want to start Germany with mostly infantry and only a few tanks. There are pros and cons on both sides.

    What I do care about is balance. I would be very, very surprised if this setup turns out to be balanced. I think you have made Germany much too powerful relative to Russia. I think Germany will be able to take Moscow on G4 in at least 90% of the games unless the USA and the UK both go heavy in the Atlantic – but if the UK and the USA goes heavy in the Atlantic, then Japan will quickly be able to take India, and that will create its own problems for the Allies.

    I can think of a couple of ways to adjust the balance. One is to add a couple of Russian infantry to the Caucasus, so that it becomes hugely unprofitable for Germany to attack the Caucasus on G1. That would be straightforward, but boring – it essentially removes one of Germany’s options without creating any new ones.

    Another way is to add more Russian infantry to Moscow, so that Moscow is more likely to hold on G4. Again, the problem with adding infantry to Moscow is that they can only do one thing – sit there and wait for the attack. Extra infantry might help Russia stack West Russia for longer, or trade the Caucasus longer, but mostly they are just there to guard the capital.

    Another way is to remove a few German starting infantry, so that losses from an early push will be riskier and will destabilize Germany’s attacks at an earlier point. This is interesting, but swingy – if you happen to take early casualties as Germany, then you might get stuck turtling and have to hope you can hold the line until Japan becomes a monster, and if you happen to take very few early casualties, then you can just march right into Moscow on G4.

    The last way is to build more resilience into Russia’s “second line of defense.” If there are some more starting troops in Archangel and West Russia and Kazakh, then even if Germany takes Leningrad and/or Stalingrad on G1, Russia will still have the option to counter-attack.

    I realize that historically, Russia took enormous losses on the front lines in the first months of the war, and was not able to counter-attack effectively. But I am not really interested in forcing that result on the players and turning into a sacred script. In my opinion, this would simply transfer one of the biggest wastes of the classic versions (the scripted destruction of the British home fleet by the German air force on the first turn) from sea to land. Every game will see the scripted destruction of Russian tanks and planes by the German infantry in Eastern Europe. Why put all those pieces on the board only to take them off again before the Allies make any decisions? It is a waste. Every piece should be the subject of an interesting decision, or else there is no point in having the piece, and we can speed up the game and keep things simpler by doing without the piece. Or at least, that is my philosophy. I don’t know whether it is also your philosophy.

    Hi Argo,
    I played many simulations with the basic G1 Caucasus invasion (and assuming Norway Infantry abandoning its station: All Baltic fleet is blocked and cannot fight UK’s growing fleet). And I tweaked things along many of your suggestions above.
    I’m sure it is not balanced yet, but way better.

    With the actual high number of Infantry, G2-G3 is able to get West Russia or Caucasus, Karelia and sometimes Archangel.
    Then R2 Soviet attack and repel the German invasion. It quite depict the turning point around December 1941.
    It provides the Eastern front wave I was looking for. On G3, Germany can decide to halt and hold the line or put some buffer zone instead of fully attack. Or put some Sub in water while progressing less aggressively. Germany has enough Infantry to hold. But this give more time to Soviet to reinforce its defensive line (adding 6 or 7 Infantry).

    I changed the initial distribution of planes for Soviet to give a better historical picture: more attacking planes than Fighter. If planes survive, there is a chance that Soviet can use TcB combined with Tank to maximum Attack @4 effect. (Something very unusual in previous OOB games.) Also, if Karelia and Archangel are untouched, Soviet Air gets 2 Fgs and 2 TcBs, which is nicely balanced to always get A4 with TcBs.

    I reduced Finland to 3 Infantry but increase Caucasus by 1 AAA.
    (That way, if Karelia is not attacked, Soviet has only 4 ground units to counter attack from Karelia and up to 2 Tanks.)
    Also, I reduced by 1 U-boat in Iceland SZ.
    Vologda gains 1 Tank, Kazakh SSR & Novosibirsk gain 1 Inf and Russia gets 1 additional Artillery.

    I also gave 1 StB for both UK and Soviet.
    (I want this new unit to be available to all, so it can be tested from all perspectives.)
    IDK the ratio of UK and Germany StBs fleet. I presume UK is higher on that set. Certainly higher than Soviet.
    So, if you feel G needs one more, I’m OK with this.

    Another question, I know you don’t want TP in Indian SZ, but what about adding 1 UK’s unescorted TP in SZ 27 on west coast of South Africa?
    It gives another target for South Atlantic U-boat, increasing dilemma for Germany.
    If it survives, this TP can be useful against IJN in UK3 and 4. This unit gives more room for UK to built warships or ground units in India or ANZAC.


    So, now, Germany has to choose what to do with its Air fleet.
    1- Destroying UK’s fleet (More Soviet planes survives) but Soviet can make a much harder time with a lot of Air strafing counter. Maybe strafing both Belorussia and Ukraine?
    2- Killing Soviet Air fleet (More UK’s fleet survives) but Soviet can make a strafing counter-attack on either Belorussia or Ukraine.
    3- G1 Karelia push (UK’s fleet partly survives and Caucasian troops can make a counter-attack)
    4- G1 amphibious Caucasian gambit (UK’s fleet partly survives and Karelian Fg is safe, and Soviet can make a strafing counter on Belorussia)

    The way I saw the freedom of choice, is not about whether or not Germany is doing Barbarossa, it is about what options remaining once players knew what happens after initial assault. Dice makes for different depictions of this Eastern Front.
    From total surprise: all Germans’ attacks went well with no or few casualties to total blunder because (trying to push too hard) German’s losses were hard on Air fleet.

    Soviet player will have to deal with remnants of Eastern front Red Army, and decide to counter attack or retreat according to the number of planes left.
    This variability, from only 2 (Fg & TcB) to 3, 4 or even 5!, is what make the change for Soviet player.
    IMO, it is not the same kind of play when you get a much mobile attacking force.

    Here is the file put on the new map you send me.

    There is additional units in India and ANZAC to relief a bit UK for a KGF (and not making it too much of a free pass for IJN troops in Okinawa and Carolina’s: 4 Infs + 2 Artillery. vs 2 Infs or 1 Inf+1 Art+ 1 AAA + 1 Fg).

    I also tried to make Pearl appears much like harboring Battleships and not making San Francisco SZ and fleet appealing to raid (for 3 Fgs and 3 TcBs coming from IJN Carriers in Iwo and Okinawa).
    Japan gets one more Artillery in Formosa for initial assault on Islands, so Air can be use on enemy’s fleet.
    Also, I added 1 Carrier on both side for IJN (in Formosa SZ with only 1 TcB to keep same 1 TcB+1Fg against UK’s BB) and USAN.
    This better depict balance of forces in PTO (US and IJN have same number of Battleships) while allowing Japan to keep 1 more Carrier than US+UK combined.
    I also learned that Hawaiian Sub harbor was almost empty during Pearl raid. But there was many Allies Submarines coming from Dutch to protect money Islands.

    That way, if IJN goes toward Midway with 2 Carriers and a lot of DDs and both Cruisers, it can make an interesting balanced naval combat between US and IJN.

    Also, it allows US to have a viable starting fleet and more options if they decide to KGF.

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha02.png
    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha02.tsvg


  • 2017 '16

    Do you have an issue if UK is grabbing Brazil on UK1?
    And more South American neutrals after?

    Persia being under Soviet influence on R1?

    Also, on Oztea’s 1941 Global setup, Sumatra (4), Borneo (4) and Celebes (3) are UK’s while Java (4) is ANZAC along with Dutch New Guinea.
    Are you sure that before June 22nd 1941, Dutch autonomous government in Far East didn’t ask for Allies (UK) protection of East Indies and Borneo?

    In 1941, Borneo was divided between the Dutch East Indies and British protectorates (North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei) and crown colonies (Labuan).

    The so-called “White Rajahs”, the Brooke family, had ruled Sarawak, on the northwest of Borneo, for almost a century, first as Rajahs under the Sultanate of Brunei (a by then tiny but once powerful state entirely enclosed within the borders of Sarawak), and from 1888 as a protectorate of the British Empire. The northeast of the island comprised North Borneo, since 1882 another British protectorate under the British North Borneo Company. Offshore lay the small British crown colony of Labuan.

    The rest of the island collectively known as Kalimantan was under Dutch control. The Netherlands were invaded by Nazi Germany in 1940. However, Free Dutch forces mainly the Royal Netherlands Navy and the 85,000-strong Royal Netherlands East Indies Army (KNIL, including a small air service) fought on, spread throughout the Dutch East Indies, and by December 1941 under an embryonic and somewhat chaotic joint allied command which became the short-lived American-British-Dutch-Australian Command (ABDACOM).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Borneo_(1941–42)

    Once you had told me what changes you like and keep and others I should revert back, we will probably be ready for a one-on-one game test.

    If you agree to play an on and off playtest and explained me how this work on this forum, I would like.
    In that game, we should use VCs bonus.

    (Eventually, Ploesti should become VCs instead of Warsaw, Poland.)
    Also, Fighter should not be able to shot Anti-Sub Attack and Defense @1 on Submarines, only Tactical Bombers.
    Their basic defense @4 is enough in Naval combat.


    I added a picture and saved game of how far I would go to help UK on ETO side, not having to invest too much in PTO.
    This change many things, I would understand if you rather going with V02 instead of this V03.
    For example, I put 3 AAAs in India, to compensate for the M3 TP and numerous carriers and planes available to Japan.
    This might help India survive longer.
    I made Sinkiang 2 Infantry.
    Added a TcB in Australia. It will help attack IJN warships in South Pacific, once moved to Darwin (Western Australia on 1942.2 map). And also depict all Allies Bombers posted there during war.
    Placed lonely TP in South Africa, increase 1 DD to UK’s Carrier in the other SZ.

    Changed the Borneo status from Neutral to UK, but I put 4 damage on London’s IC.


    I’m first looking to get the best picture possible from historical POV before balancing and cutting units out. It seems that giving more options for Allies (which imply more starting units) can still be possible as long as Axis keep the initiative in turn order. Of course the first round is a long one, but things get clearer and clearer with rounds going up.

    Japan has a lot of options between money islands, shuting down New Zealand or Hawaiian Factory, going north in Alaska or south in Malaya and Burma. 4 Carriers makes IJN less stranded but US get a working fleet on start. I don’t want to make as OOB UK’s total wreckage on US. In addition, if one Carrier is sacrificed in US1, it works according to historical timeline since Lexington and Yorktown were sunk early 1942.

    If possible, I would like to give more actions for US in ATO at the start of US1.
    That’s why I replaced 1 Destroyer for 1 Carrier.
    I believe Germany can sustained this early action.
    The US1 OOB stagnation is one thing which is not cool from this game. US player already have to wait until the end of the round to play. It needs something to toy with. In addition, many US Carriers were along the US East Coast at the beginning of the war. So, making a small working fleet on the outset seems more interesting.
    Also, it increase Fg and TcB range. Now, they can reach UK directly: another option about these two planes to move in PTO or keep in ATO. Now this choice is less easier than previously where there was no place to go, except Gibraltar.

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha03.png
    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha03.tsvg


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    This is a very interesting setup you’ve produced.

    I don’t mind if Britain grabs South America or if Russia grabs Persia. Russia did in fact have a zone of influence in Persia, and there’s no special reason why it couldn’t have been larger. South America was on reasonably good terms with Britain before the 1980s Falkland war, and there’s no special reason why they couldn’t have gone British. If Roosevelt said no, because of the Monroe Doctrine or whatever, then it would not have happened, but the USA letting Britain back into the Western Hemisphere can be thought of as a kind of symbolic lend-lease. It is slightly more natural for Brazil to align with the USA, and it is also much easier for America to find a spare transport to claim Brazil (or to simply march down infantry from Panama). I also think giving Borneo to the UK while leaving Java neutral is fine.

    I will move the Warsaw VC to Ploesti – I just forgot.

    There are parts of the new setup that I like; having an Axis East Africa is fun, and I think eastern Europe looks about right, and having 2 British DDs near Singapore with 1 British BB near India also feels right, and even the Chinese front looks pretty good.

    I do not like the Pacific Ocean setup – it is just way too busy. I don’t think players will have fun trying to figure out all the different tactical combinations they can use to attack each other; instead they will just get a headache. The screen is too small and the face-to-face map is too small to accommodate that many units, even if it is just for the starting setup. I also do not see that there are that many strategic options for Japan on J1 in the Pacific…Japan will definitely want to hit the 2 USA battleships at Pearl Harbor, and Japan will definitely not want to hit the main US Pacific Fleet in San Diego, and Japan will not be able to reach the US South Pacific Fleet in SZ 42. The rest is just details – do you kill a fighter on Wake Island or a fighter on Midway? Do you kill a destroyer in Singapore, or a destroyer in the Coral Sea? Do you want to attack at total of three destroyers, or a total of four destroyers? Very nitpicky little details. This is stuff that the Japanese player is going to spend a lot of time thinking about when it’s his turn, but it’s not stuff that players will have fun dissecting in the forums with each other or thinking about on the bus on the way to the game. Instead of a clear, interesting decision to go down one of three or four roads, Japan has one major highway that it must go down, and all Japan gets to decide is which lane or lanes to use on that highway.

    As far as balance, there are so many units on the board that I cannot tell who if anyone has an advantage, but here is one observation: Japan starts with 15 IPCs of income to USA’s 40 IPCs of income. With a carrier group and a loaded transport sitting in the Eastern US sea zone at game start, America does not really need to invest much to run Operation Torch – maybe buy 1 transport and 1 artillery on US1, and then two infantry on US2. That’s pretty much all you need; a total investment of $17 on top of your starting units should get you control of north Africa unless Germany does something crazy. Over the first couple of turns, America will probably lose $4 or $5 from the Philippines and China while gaining $6 or $7 from Latin America, so the USA winds up stabilizing at about $42 per turn. If Japan takes Soviet Far East, Buryatia, Anhwei, Yunnan, Kwangtung, the Philippines, Burma, Java, Borneo, New Guinea, Hawaii, and Malaya while losing nothing, that puts Japan at about $36 per turn…noticeably less than the USA. Meanwhile, Japan starts the game with only $4 of extra Total Unit Value (TUV) compared to the Americans. They can increase that on J1 by killing US Battleships at Pearl Harbor with subs and planes – call that a $30 swing for Japan. Japan can also kill the US Philippine fleet at a modest profit because of the poorly defended transport – call that another $10. And Japan can afford to pick off one or two or maybe even three of the American destroyers and island ‘airbases’ in the central Pacific – call that another $20 of profit. So Japan will be up something like $4 + $30 + $10 + $20 = $64 in TUV at the end of J1 as against America alone. Japan will probably lose at least some of that to the US1 counter-attack, unless Japan is perfectly positioned for defense. Japan will also ‘lose’ about $5 per turn just because America is out-earning Japan, even after accounting for the money that America has to spend in the Atlantic. So Japan has a very, very modest advantage against America. It’s not obvious to me that Japan will get any great follow-up attacks against America on J2. Szechuan should hold on J2 unless Japan goes 100% against China, and the united US Pacific fleet (even after the loss of the Hawaiian battleships) should easily be able to hold against any possible J2 attacks in San Francisco or perhaps even in Hawaii.

    So assuming America sends most of its cash west against Japan, what will Japan have left over to make gains against the beefed-up British colonies and the reasonably strong Siberian Russian forces and the beefed-up Chinese army? Japan can maybe afford to refill two of its transports each turn and unload them in mainland Asia to keep up the fight in China. The rest of Japan’s cash has to go into navy/air builds, or the US + ANZAC navy starts reclaiming the money islands as early as UK3/US3. This means that Japan can forget about building more transports, or building factories, or anything aggressive like that. Japan is balanced on a razor’s edge – if they don’t send enough land units into Asia, they’ll be thrown back on some of the Asian fronts and will drop too far below the USA in income to be competitive, but if they don’t send enough naval units into the Pacific, then they’ll be pushed out of the money islands, and, again, they will drop too far below the USA in income to be competitive. Starting with 4 carrier groups vs. the USA’s 2 carrier groups gives Japan a little bit of time, but the full British carrier group near South Africa becomes relevant as early as UK2, and the USA has a geographical advantage in China: Japan has to defend a bunch of 2-IPC and 3-IPC territories, but the USA only has to defend 1-IPC territories, so the USA can neglect China a bit if it wants to, but Japan has to defend the Chinese coast or it loses its income. Similarly, in Indonesia, Japan is fighting to defend the 3-IPC and 4-IPC money islands, but ANZAC is defending a bunch of 1-IPC territories. Japan can win on 2 fronts (China, Indonesia, Buryatia) and lose in 1 of them, and still wind up losing the game. I think all of this adds up to a major Allied advantage in the Pacific. I’m not sure there is a corresponding Axis advantage in the Atlantic – I think the European Theater of Operations looks pretty balanced.

    I am not totally sold on nerfing fighters to lose the anti-sub capability. I think it can be too hard to hunt down subs as it is. I send 2 destroyers and a tac bomber against your 1 sub, and the sub has a 50% chance to survive. I send 4 destroyers and 2 tac bombers against 3 subs, and you probably wind up with 1 or 2 subs left. Meanwhile, flip that around to be 1 sub attacking 1 DD + 1 transport, and the sub gets very good economic odds. So your subs are tying up 3x or 4x their cost in defensive boats and planes, and it’s still not a given that the defenses will actually work.

    I would prefer to see subs be (a) deadly if left unattended, but (b) vulnerable and weak if the defenders invest big bucks in anti-sub defenses.

    Overall you have some very interesting ideas, and I’m glad we’ve been able to work on this together. 🙂


  • 2017 '16

    Your comments are always challenging and well thought out.
    In addition, you also clearly invest time on a real in depth analysis, not just in this set up but also to other people on this forum.
    I hope they enjoyed reading it as much as I do.

    All your comments on PTO seem right to me. While trying to get a better historical depiction I was loosing sight of the whole picture. Cramped board and not enough clear objectives. On the side, I may be a bit bias toward having much warships on the board because I like these big sculpts even if they are not relevant to win IPCs for you. It is only on setup you get as much as possible units in SZs.  😄

    Adding more IJN ships in SZs was also a way to compensate for the lack of Japanese income early war.
    So over-cramped SZs are kind of consequences of delaying capture of Chinese’s and UK’s TTs.
    It is the razor-edge to reach maximum optimized IJN units while allowing Allies need not to invest all money in PTO to bring a relevant defense (which can only delay the inevitable Japanese PTO conquest) while trying a KGF.

    @Argothair:

    I do not like the Pacific Ocean setup – it is just way too busy. I don’t think players will have fun trying to figure out all the different tactical combinations they can use to attack each other; instead they will just get a headache. The screen is too small and the face-to-face map is too small to accommodate that many units, even if it is just for the starting setup. I also do not see that there are that many strategic options for Japan on J1 in the Pacific…Japan will definitely want to hit the 2 USA battleships at Pearl Harbor, and Japan will definitely not want to hit the main US Pacific Fleet in San Diego, and Japan will not be able to reach the US South Pacific Fleet in SZ 42. The rest is just details – do you kill a fighter on Wake Island or a fighter on Midway? Do you kill a destroyer in Singapore, or a destroyer in the Coral Sea? Do you want to attack at total of three destroyers, or a total of four destroyers? Very nitpicky little details. This is stuff that the Japanese player is going to spend a lot of time thinking about when it’s his turn, but it’s not stuff that players will have fun dissecting in the forums with each other or thinking about on the bus on the way to the game. Instead of a clear, interesting decision to go down one of three or four roads, Japan has one major highway that it must go down, and all Japan gets to decide is which lane or lanes to use on that highway.

    Clearly, it is time to cut into these numerous units in PTO. I will need time to test a few things before providing a cleaner setup.

    However, your comment makes me think about an alternate historical opening. What if IJN player had to decide between attacking Pearl or Pearl and the isolated Carrier? After all, it was only a matter of chance (a few hours) if USS Enterprise was not at Pearl Harbor on this day of infamy. Moving up north CV+DD+1 TcB from SZ42 to SZ54.

    Japanese player would now have to decide how he splits between US Battleship and US Carrier.
    This make Carrier Task Force vulnerable to 1 Cruiser and all the 6 Carrier’s planes while BBs at Pearl Harbor are vulnerable to 2 Submarines, 1 DD, 1 Cruiser and 6 planes. This is why the Wake SZ Destroyer blocker is so important.

    But Pearl SZ is dead-zoned by San Francisco fleet and planes in US.

    So, the opening leave with bold (blasting out US Navy) or cautious approach (Historical Pearl Raid).
    And both approach can decide to lure US into attacking IJN Carriers in either Pearl or Midway.
    Or simply make “light attack” and withdrawing as much warships as possible out of US reach.

    What do you think of that one? I provided a picture below.
    I will reduced IJN fleet eventually. It is just to put forward this concept.

    In addition, loosing this US Carrier in SZ54 can count as the early lost of USS Lexington in Coral Sea air battle just prior to Midway battle. And this Carrier was also around Midway in december 1941.


    On Fg Anti-Sub, at least I would only make it Anti-Sub Attack @1 and no more Anti-Sub Defense.
    But in both cases, it will not be the same rule in Global. That’s why I talked about making only TcB Anti-Sub.
    Lets the case open on this 1942 map for now. No hurry.

    @Argothair:

    This is a very interesting setup you’ve produced.

    I don’t mind if Britain grabs South America or if Russia grabs Persia. Russia did in fact have a zone of influence in Persia, and there’s no special reason why it couldn’t have been larger. South America was on reasonably good terms with Britain before the 1980s Falkland war, and there’s no special reason why they couldn’t have gone British. If Roosevelt said no, because of the Monroe Doctrine or whatever, then it would not have happened, but the USA letting Britain back into the Western Hemisphere can be thought of as a kind of symbolic lend-lease. It is slightly more natural for Brazil to align with the USA, and it is also much easier for America to find a spare transport to claim Brazil (or to simply march down infantry from Panama). I also think giving Borneo to the UK while leaving Java neutral is fine.

    I will move the Warsaw VC to Ploesti – I just forgot.  Thanks.

    There are parts of the new setup that I like; having an Axis East Africa is fun, and I think eastern Europe looks about right, and having 2 British DDs near Singapore with 1 British BB near India also feels right, and even the Chinese front looks pretty good.

    I think all of this adds up to a major Allied advantage in the Pacific. I’m not sure there is a corresponding Axis advantage in the Atlantic – I think the European Theater of Operations looks pretty balanced.

    Overall you have some very interesting ideas, and I’m glad we’ve been able to work on this together. 🙂

    I’m happy you like Italian East Africa change.
    These battles will be over around September and October and peace signed up in late 1941.
    It depicts historical situation on June 1941.

    I’m glad too your are OK about Borneo, Persia and all South American countries. Fine explanation about lend-lease to UK.

    Are you OK with this little lonely TP in South Africa Atlantic SZ?

    Should I conclude from your comment on ETO that you like the US Carrier in Eastern US SZ?
    And you are OK about this 1 Infantry in French Western Africa as being vulnerable to both UK and US fleet even if G1 purchase an additional ground unit?

    Also, Germany may want to DOW early on by attacking EUS fleet with 3 Subs. But, there is so much juicier and easier UK’s targets in Atlantic…

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha03_Pearl alternate opening.png


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    Thank you!

    I hear you on the difficulty of finding a way to make Japan stronger without also making Japan cluttered. It is a hard task. I don’t object to how strong Japan was in your v3, just how cluttered the board was. Maybe there’s a way to give Japan more BBs and CAs, with fewer DDs and SSs. Or maybe there’s a way to put stacks of units on top of each other, e.g., one sea zone has 3 SS but 0 DD, and one sea zone has 0 SS but 3 DD. It’s not perfectly realistic, but it also will not matter against anyone except Russia’s lone submarine, and then as soon as Japan moves things will sort themselves out more neatly. Or maybe we can move the fighters, etc. that are on the land tiles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima over to Japan, or over to the Caroline Islands, where there is a little more room. With four CVs, it should not be that hard to get the Japanese air force into forward positions without also needing to clutter up the Japanese islands. I think the worst cluttering effect is when there is a big navy in a sea zone, with planes on carriers, and then also an air force presence on the island itself. I like the USA planes on Wake Island, etc. because it is just a land-based plane; no clutter. But for Japan there is a lot of clutter.

    I like the general thrust of your new picture, although as you say, it needs more work. Keep in mind that if you remove the third destroyer from the San Diego fleet, then it becomes possible for Japan to hit it with 6 planes if they really want to. I would prefer to avoid a situation where Japan can hit and sink all three US Pacific fleets on J1 with better than 10% odds, dead zoned or otherwise. Sinking even 2 out of 3 major fleets should either be (a) risky or (b) require committing extra resources that might have been better used in Indonesia/China.

    I could live with a a fighter that has ASA @ 1 but no ASD. That sounds right; if a sub sneaks up on a carrier, the carrier is in trouble, but if a fighter squadron escorts some destroyers to hunt for the sub, then the sub is in trouble! Do you want to give ASA @ 2 to either tac bombers or destroyers? Do you want to remove ASD from tac bombers (ASD = 0)?

    I’m fine with the lonely transport near South Africa, I think. It is interesting for Germany to decide what to do with its 2 southern submarines. I think in many games the Gibraltar carrier group will survive G1, which is kind of fun. Maybe the transport can be abused; you will have to show me when we play! The transport can reach Egypt in one turn if it lives.

    I am not worried about the Vichy West Africa forces getting crushed for three reasons: (1) I think the Vichy victory at Dakar was a coincidence, and (2) the Allies have other things to do in the Atlantic on the first turn, like hit Norway, reinforce UK to protect against Sea Lion, hit France, hit NW Europe, hit Morocco, and move forces down to mobilize South America.  The Allies will onliy have 2 or 3 transports to get all of that work done. So, if they want to hit Dakar, fine! If not, also fine. Finally, Germany can easily arrange to make it so that UK cannot really afford to use the 1 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr in Dakar. E.g. if Germany sinks the lonely transport in SZ 27, and hits Egypt with the Libyan forces plus one loaded transport and the Italian fighter, then Germany probably ends G1 with 3 land units in Egypt. If you send the whole FEA stack west, then your max stack on UK1 in Sudan is 1 inf, 1 art, plus whatever planes you want to land in Sudan from off of your South African carrier. If you land the planes, then the carrier can’t go east to fight Japan, and Japan gets an advantage. If you don’t land the planes, then Germany can attack Sudan on G2 with something like 1 art, 2 tnk, 1 ftr against 1 inf, 1 art. This is very risky for UK; if Germany wins without taking casualties, and UK did not build a factory in South Africa yet, then Germany can wind up controlling most/all of Africa even though he only sent one transport. It takes too long for forces built in liberated West African factory to make a difference to that conflict.

    I’m not thrilled about the starting American Atlantic carrier, but I can’t deny it to them in good conscience; America certainly had a powerful Atlantic fleet in 1941, and it’s silly to pretend they had zero capital ships. Maybe a BB would make more sense than a CV, so that the planes aren’t set up to hit Morocco on US1? Or maybe the tank in Eastern US can be moved to Central US for starting setup? The tanks were probably mostly made in Detroit, not in New York. Right now, even if Germany max-stacks Morocco with 3 inf, 1 ftr, 1 tacB on G1, then Morocco is not safe against the max American invasion (pulling in the Panama infantry and cruiser) of 2 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 tacB, 2 cruiser bombards. USA has 64% odds to win that battle, with average TUV swing of +5 for USA. That doesn’t seem realistic to me – the US Army was not ready to fight in autumn 1941; they needed time to train. I am OK if they take Morocco on US2 (which I imagine represents spring 1942, still well ahead of the November 1942 invasion that actually happened in history), but I don’t think USA should be able to take a well-defended Morocco on US1 unless the UK helps soften it up on UK1.

    I’m not worried about the German subs attacking the US fleet – they can if they want, but it’s a pretty weird strategy and I don’t see that it would help them.


  • 2017 '16

    @Argothair:

    This is a very interesting setup you’ve produced.

    Overall you have some very interesting ideas, and I’m glad we’ve been able to work on this together. 🙂

    Another point which is astonishing me in this on going process is how far we get from the basic AA50 OOB 1941 migrated setup. Almost every points of debate was leading to reconsider the basic setup and underlying assumptions it conveyed.

    Neutral TTs or lack of, Africa’s wasteland, Infantry only in USSR and status of Red Army and of Wehrmacht, no UK’s fleet after G1, US1 building-up and waiting turn, all uninteresting zero IPC TTs: Gibraltar, Wake, Midway, Solomons, questioning JTDTM via Chinese TTs and the last nail on coffin of the basic OOB is this out of reach US Carrier in PTO.

    It is very challenging and I learned a lot from our on going (and much improved IMO) more historically depicting 1941 military situations set-up. Clearly, any theoretical discussions would never bring me that far into WWII 1941 and A&A than this more actual discussion within this project frame.


    On Anti-Sub, I would only modified Fighter. It was experimented by Barney on Global setup.
    He came to the conclusion that only TcB and DD should have ASAD @1.

    Destroyers are 5 IPCs, so for the same cost you already get 2 rolls @1 compared to TcB.

    Another reason is to give specific function to Fg : escorting and intercepting ; TcB: anti-sub offense and defense. Still Redesign Fighters don’t need DD to hit Subs in regular naval combat. This is already a pretty good capacity.
    However, since TcB gets an A1 in SBR, it can be reasonable to give an A1 to Fg in Anti-Sub mission.
    (So, this would imply Fighter in Global Redesign need to be playtested that way, to see if this can work.)

    My main wish on this is to keep the same unit for both G40 and 1942, as much as possible.


  • 2017 '16

    I prefer US Carrier because of historical depiction and no Battleships were available in ATO (AFAIK all were at Pearl). Instead, I would make this fleet weaker by turning Cruiser into a Destroyer. So, moving early in Morocco becomes more dangerous (and only 1 Panama’s Cruiser would protect this Task Force). Also, keeping this Carrier in EUS SZ make it a faster entry point for any planes purchased and going to UK. It allows to reach it on US2.
    And this feature can easily be credited to Carriers planes reinforcement capacity in ATO.

    Also, both USS Wasp and USS Ranger work early on in Atlantic Ocean:

    After supporting the occupation of Iceland in 1941, Wasp joined the British Home Fleet in April 1942 and twice ferried British fighter aircraft to Malta.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)

    One year after the invasion, forces from the still officially neutral United States were stationed on the island by agreement with the Icelandic government, relieving the bulk of British ground forces. US forces grew considerably after the US entered the war on 7 December 1941, reaching up to 30,000 army, navy and air force personnel at any one time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland#Outcome

    In December 1941, she was returning to Norfolk from an ocean patrol extending to Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Arriving in Norfolk on 8 December, she sailed on 21 December for patrol in the South Atlantic. She then entered the Norfolk Navy Yard for repairs on 21 March 1942. Ranger was one of 14 ships to receive the early RCA CXAM-1 radar.

    This last one can also be accounted for Carrier unit either moving to Brazil SZ or West African SZ.

    I’m confident we can find a way to keep both planes on this Carrier. US1 counter-attack on IJN will need these planes and Panama’s Cruiser too. USA cannot have its cake and eat it too :  getting both sides PTO in Midway or Hawaii and ATO in Africa.


    On Tank in Central US, I’m not against it for better depicting Detroit Factories (on Triple A, Detroit is still part of EUSA).
    However, it doesn’t change anything for any amphibious assault: Central USA is connected to EUS SZ11.
    Maybe changing it into 1 Inf and 1 Artillery?
    So it becomes less useful in Africa on USA 1, and deliver a weaker punch when Inf is taken as first casualty and if 1 Fg has to be taken as another one, TcB can no more gets its A4 attack.

    I like the general thrust of your new picture, although as you say, it needs more work. Keep in mind that if you remove the third destroyer from the San Diego fleet, then it becomes possible for Japan to hit it with 6 planes if they really want to. I would prefer to avoid a situation where Japan can hit and sink all three US Pacific fleets on J1 with better than 10% odds, dead zoned or otherwise. Sinking even 2 out of 3 major fleets should either be (a) risky or (b) require committing extra resources that might have been better used in Indonesia/China.

    That was the idea. But, don’t forget: you have only 6 planes which can reach that SZ, no fodder.
    It is a 57% vs 43% odds of survival for Japan.
    You are also crippling any attack on Pearl Harbor (2 Subs, 1 DD and 1 Cruiser) or the Carrier Task Force (1 Cruiser).
    Although, IJN numbers of DDs, Subs in Caroline or Okinawa are not totally determined: if there is only 2 Subs and 1 Cruiser with no air support, attack on 2 BBs becomes a loosing proposition: 17% vs 83%.

    I’m not against any fine tuning here. (Adding a Sub in WUS SZ or coming back to 3 DDs is not forbidden.)
    I’m just opened to a more daring raid on San Francisco fleet (as another alternate entry in war), but I share your POV I don’t want to loose 2 US fleets without losses on IJN part.

    So, I reintroduced this 3rd DDs and put a picture below. So, we don’t have to get to last page.
    I made weaker and more vulnerable Carrier in EUSA fleet with only 1 Destroyer. So no Cruiser can escort a TP into Norway SZ on USA1. And I changed 1 Tank for 1 Art in EUSA and 1 Inf in Central USA.
    All these little things make US less ready for waging war.

    I also moved IJN DD and Sub into Okinawa and Caroline respectively as well as 1 Fg to Caroline.
    As you suggested to sort things out.


    Another game point: it is not possible to make a G1 Sea Lion because Baltic SZ is contested and North Sea SZ will be too if TP move there. So, Sea Lion can only be done as early as G2. (Oops. I forgot TP gets 3 moves. But there is only Infantry to bring on this Baltic TP. All Tanks are on Eastern Front and Artillery in Germany. Giving an odds of success around 3%.)

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha03_Pearl alternate openingv1.png
    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha03_Pearl alternate openingv1.tsvg


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    Much better. I like it a lot! I think you have created a very interesting strategic puzzle for the Japanese player: he can hit Pearl Harbor and a couple of isolated destroyers for an obvious profit, but that still leaves the core of the American Pacific fleet intact. He can hit Pearl Harbor with something like 2 SS, 1 CA, 2 planes and send 4 planes to hit the small south Pacific carrier group, which is very profitable if you win both battles, but the odds of winning both battles together is only 80%, and even if you win them both you might lose several planes. Or, as a third option, he can ignore Hawaii, ignore the south Pacific, and hit both Midway Island and the San Francisco fleet with all 6 planes, which is very risky (only 58% odds for Japan even if we remove the third American San Francisco destroyer), but if enough of your planes survive, you can seriously disrupt or maybe even dictate American strategy on US1 by forcing them to stack their navy in Midway on a turn when they don’t start out controlling the island. America is still not in any immediate danger of being wiped out of the Pacific, but this gambit can force the USA to use a strategy that they may not be familiar with, or that will pull the USA out of the Atlantic in a way that Germany may be able to exploit.

    These are very interesting choices. The map is also noticeably less cluttered, which I appreciate.

    I am not worried about no G1 Sea Lion – with the game starting in 1941, that reflects the initial German attack on Britain having been successfully fought off, so if Germany wanted to make a second round of attacks on Britain (other than just bombing raids) then it would have needed a few months to prepare. That seems fair and realistic and interesting.

    The only changes I would recommend are:

    1. Remove the third American destroyer in San Francisco Bay
    2. Remove either 1 inf or 1 AAA gun from Western Australia – that area was very lightly held by ANZAC in 1941, and the extra Allied unit on the Australian continent makes invading Australia extremely unattractive for Japan (instead of just moderately unattractive).

    Even after those changes, there might be a very slight Allied bias on this map (3 IPC to 6 IPC bid needed for Axis), but I’m OK with that, and it is worth testing to find out.


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    I’m trying to find the correct balance for 3 planes Carrier and lower cost planes.
    To use redesign on my table top game 1942.2 with G40 units. It was the more convenient thread.

    ASAD: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack def @1

    Destroyer A1 D1 ASA1D1 M2 C5, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
    Submarine A2fs D1fs M2 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after AAS. 2D in Convoy SZ.
    Transport A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

    Cruiser A3 D3 M3 C9, 1 hit, shorebombard @3, 1D in Convoy SZ
    Carrier A0 D3 M2 C15, 2 hits, carry 3 planes
    Battleship A4 D4 M2 C15 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZ

    Fighter A2 D2 M4-6 C7, 1 hit SBR A2 D2, 1D in Convoy SZ, hit air first, then AAA
    Tactical Bomber A3 D2 ASAD1 M4-6 C8, 1 hit, TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6, 1D in Convoy SZ
    Strategic Bomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A1 dmg 1D6

    Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB

    Second version, 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits BB:

    Transport, defenseless
    A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit,
    taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

    Transport working as warship
    A0 D1 M3 C9, 1 hit,
    carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

    Submarine
    A2fs D1fs M2 C5, 1 hit,
    Stealth Move, No DD block, may Submerge after ASAD.
    2Ds in Convoy SZ

    Destroyer
    A2 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit,
    ASA1D1,
    1D in Convoy SZ

    Escort Carrier (optional)
    A0 D2 M2 C8, 1 hit,
    ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
    No dice in Convoy SZ

    Cruiser
    A3 D3 M3 C12, 2 hits,
    Shorebombard @3,
    1D in Convoy SZ

    Carrier
    A0 D3 M2 C15, 2 hits,
    carry 3 planes, damaged Carrier carry 1 plane
    No dice in Convoy SZ

    Battleship
    A4 D4 M2 C18, 3 hits,
    Shorebombard @4,
    1D in Convoy SZ

    Strategic Bomber
    A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit,
    SBR 1 hit A1 dmg 1D6

    Fighter
    A2 D2 M4-6 C6, 1 hit, _target plane first, then AAA (owner’s choice) _
    SBR A2 D2,
    Can hit Subs without Destroyer presence,
    2Ds in Convoy SZ

    Tactical Bomber
    A3 D2 M4-6 C7, 1 hit,
    TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
    ASA1D1, can hit Subs without Destroyer presence,
    2Ds in Convoy SZ

    Anti-aircraft Artillery
    A0 D1* M1 C3, 1 hit,

    • @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, each combat round.
      It is not preemptive but a regular roll.

    @Argothair,
    what do you think of this last roster and cost structure?
    It keeps mostly the same dynamics between Subs and DDs but all combat values are much nearer OOB and warships roster is scaled on within 3 IPCs increment, except TP 7 PUs and using C5 for Sub:
    SS5, DD6, CA12, CV15, BB18 and TP A0 D1 M3 C9

    TP C9 acting as warship will increase independent action and gives total freedom on casualty selection for better reenactment of Subs vs TPs + DDs naval combat. And planes being cheaper than TP can be acceptable losses when attacking TPs.

    Also, combat between Fg, TcB vs warships keeps near similar odds to OOB.
    No need to add AAA to Cruiser and BB to balance vs DD A2 D2 C6, as the case actually in G40 Redesign with DD A1 D1 C5.

    Tactical A3 D2 C7 (no more combined arms needed) and Fg A2 D2 C6 may compensate for lack of A4 bombers C12.

    @Argo,
    there is another variants with Fighter A2 D3 you will possibly like:

    Variant:

    Fighter
    A2 D3 M4-6 C7, 1 hit, _target plane first, then AAA (owner’s choice) _
    SBR A2 D3,
    Can hit Subs without Destroyer presence,
    2Ds in Convoy SZ

    G40 3 planes Aircraft Carrier
    Attack 0
    Defense 2
    Hits 2
    Move 2-3
    Cost 15
    Carry 3 planes, 1 if damaged


  • 2017 '16

    @Argothair:

    Much better. I like it a lot! I think you have created a very interesting strategic puzzle for the Japanese player: he can hit Pearl Harbor and a couple of isolated destroyers for an obvious profit, but that still leaves the core of the American Pacific fleet intact. He can hit Pearl Harbor with something like 2 SS, 1 CA, 2 planes and send 4 planes to hit the small south Pacific carrier group, which is very profitable if you win both battles, but the odds of winning both battles together is only 80%, and even if you win them both you might lose several planes. Or, as a third option, he can ignore Hawaii, ignore the south Pacific, and hit both Midway Island and the San Francisco fleet with all 6 planes, which is very risky (only 58% odds for Japan even if we remove the third American San Francisco destroyer), but if enough of your planes survive, you can seriously disrupt or maybe even dictate American strategy on US1 by forcing them to stack their navy in Midway on a turn when they don’t start out controlling the island. America is still not in any immediate danger of being wiped out of the Pacific, but this gambit can force the USA to use a strategy that they may not be familiar with, or that will pull the USA out of the Atlantic in a way that Germany may be able to exploit.

    These are very interesting choices. The map is also noticeably less cluttered, which I appreciate.

    I am not worried about no G1 Sea Lion – with the game starting in 1941, that reflects the initial German attack on Britain having been successfully fought off, so if Germany wanted to make a second round of attacks on Britain (other than just bombing raids) then it would have needed a few months to prepare. That seems fair and realistic and interesting.

    The only changes I would recommend are:
    1) Remove the third American destroyer in San Francisco Bay
    2) Remove either 1 inf or 1 AAA gun from Western Australia –
    that area was very lightly held by ANZAC in 1941, and the extra Allied unit on the Australian continent makes invading Australia extremely unattractive for Japan (instead of just moderately unattractive).

    Even after those changes, there might be a very slight Allied bias on this map (3 IPC to 6 IPC bid needed for Axis), but I’m OK with that, and it is worth testing to find out.

    I made changes you suggested: 1 less DD on USW coast, 1 Inf less in WAustralia
    I added 1 Inf in French-Indo China and 1 german TP in Baltic Sea.
    UK get 1 additional Strategic bomber but 1 less AAA and no damage on IC.
    Germany also get 1 additional Strategic bomber.

    These changes maybe will slightly tip balance toward Axis IMO.
    Axis will have a difficult game to get enough incomes compared to Allies after round 3.
    With this additional TP, Sea Lion may be possible G2 or G3, more difficult.
    I will made some simulations but US Fgs and Infantries may now land England US1.

    Also, there is 3 U-boats which can launch an attack on US East Coast.
    That way, Germany may decide to DOW on USA before Japan make Pearl raid.
    Japan get an additional Inf for the initial assault in mainland Asia, but farther from center China. As you said, this would represent a 3 IPCs bid.

    All in all, I’m trying to open as much options as possible in the first rounds.
    If Germany try Sea Lion G2 (1 Carrier and 3 transports buy G1) and leave almost Russians planes intact, there is a around 33% odds of conquering UK.
    But it remains a difficult challenge after this against USSR growing army with 5 or 6 planes as back up.

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha04.png
    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha04.tsvg


  • 2017 '16

    Hi Argo,
    IDK if you have opportunity and the will to focus again on this spring 2017 project…

    I made a few simulations and to get at least a viable counter attack by US, if Japan want to attract all US air-naval forces into Hawaii or  Midway, I added 1 DD into Mexico West Coast (so WUS coast fleet remains vulnerable to IJN 3 TcBs+3 Fgs) and 1 TcB into WUSA. It leave more opportunity options for East Coast Fg+TcB.

    Is it too much on PTO, does US becomes too strong afterward, if Japan doesn’t place his fleet as a target?

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha05.png


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    Hi Baron,

    I need to keep tripleA off of my computer, because I find it addictive and it tends to ruin my life. You and I have also already spent many hours on this particular map, and while we are making progress, it is pretty slow progress and we often wander around in circles a few times before we’re able to move on to the next stage. So, I am happy to give some occasional advice on the map, and I will be happy to playtest it with you if we’re ever in the same city, but that is all. I am no longer very interested in this map. Nothing personal; I enjoy working with you, but this particular project has mostly run its course for me.

    I took a look at your Pacific navies here, and at first glance it appears that Japan is too weak relative to the Allies. As you can see in the attached chart, Japan does not really outnumber the Allies in any category at the start of the game. I am counting the Indian, ANZAC, and US Pacific navies, plus the US navy in the Panama canal and the two planes that start off the coast of New York, because all of those units can participate in relevant Pacific battles on the first turn. I am not counting the American fighter in China or the British fighter in India. This gives Japan a -11 Total Unit Value (TUV) handicap vs. the Allies at the start of the game: the Allied navies are stronger.

    Admittedly, Japan can do very well with its first-strike battles on J1 and wipe out something like 6 Allied destroyers, 2 Allied planes, 2 Allied battleships, 2 Allied transports, and 2 Allied subs with only minimal losses – perhaps a loss of 2 Japanese destroyers and 2 Japanese planes. So that is a net gain for Japan on turn 1 of about 4 destroyers, 2 transports, and 2 battleships – a TUV gain of +74 IPCs, which puts Japan’s position at a net advantage of +63 TUV.

    However, if Japan wants to conquer a reasonable number of the money islands and other targets, then Japan will have to either sacrifice multiple transports or sacrifice one or more destroyers as part of blocking fleets. Let’s say that imposes loses on Japan of about -20 IPCs. This reduces Japan’s net advantage to +43 TUV.

    Japan could try to achieve a more dramatic advantage by destroying more American boats on turn 1, but that would also tend to put more of Japan’s boats at risk, and it’s not clear to me that there’s any way to get an expected advantage of more than +43 TUV after J1. You might get lucky in some games, but overall it will probably average out to about +43 from this setup regardless of whether you make an aggressive attack or a conservative attack.

    This +43 TUV advantage is then further reduced because the Allies can drop many more boats and planes in the water than Japan for the first few turns. On turn 1, Japan only has 15 IPCs to spend, total, some of which might go for transports, a factory, or infantry. If they boost this to 30 IPCs on their first turn’s conquest, that’s a good first turn. So Japan is spending something like 45 IPCs on turns 1 and 2, not all of which will go to navy. (If Japan does spend 100% on navy and air, that further reduces Japan’s ability to achieve a breakout against, e.g., India, west China, and central Russia).

    By contrast, The British start with about 35 IPCs, and the Americans start with about 40 IPCs. They should keep that same rough income level at the end of turn 1, because the British can walk into places like Saudi Arabia, Italian East Africa, France, Norway, etc., whereas the Americans can walk into Mexico, Brazil, and so on. So any early losses by US/UK can be offset in the short-term by taking neutral or poorly defended territories. That means that US/UK are spending a total of about 35 + 40 + 35 + 40 = 150 IPCs on turns 1 and 2. If they split that evenly, half to the Atlantic and half to the Pacific, that’s 75 IPCs to the Pacific to fight Japan, which means Japan is being outspent by 75 - 45 = 30 IPCs.

    If the US/UK spend less money on infantry than Japan in the Pacific, as I think they will in most games, then that further increases the Allied naval advantage.

    This reduces Japan’s total advantage in the Pacific to (at most) only +13 TUV – roughly one carrier, or one cruiser. This is not enough of an advantage, I think, to overcome Japan’s unfavorable territory structure. Japan needs to penetrate deep into enemy territory to get past 30 IPCs/turn, because it is surrounded by 1-IPC and 0-IPC territories. By contrast, the US/UK can pick off high-value Japanese territories if they make any gains anywhere on any front. Moreover, as the Axis player, it is Japan’s obligation to achieve or at least threaten a breakout. The Axis start seriously behind on income, and they will lose the game unless they find a way to capture a capital or stabilize the economic balance of power. I don’t think this setup gives Japan enough of a chance to build enough momentum to get up to the 45 - 50 IPCs / turn that Japan needs in order to do its part to stabilize the economic balance of power.

    My preferred solution here is to remove some Allied units. I think there are too many units on this map already, and that the visual complexity is not yet justified by appropriate strategic depth.

    Good luck and thanks for sharing!

    Pacific Navies.png


  • 2017 '16

    Thanks for your in depth analysis,
    I did not expect such.
    I easily understand how our interest can change or our focus is modified by the many opportunities of life.

    I really like the table you provided, it clearly might help make better choice when reducing number of naval units.

    We clearly agree on principles, Japan need a big J1 TUV and need to be ahead from Allies in PTO.
    Assuming Allies will grow fast with their higher economy.
    Less is better for set-up time and for first round options and combat resolution.

    Thank you very much again,
    You are really an A&A passionnate.
    I hope to see you around.

    If some maths might interest you, here is my last discovery on A&A ground units comparative strength.
    It is a table which give an immediate idea of a given ground unit compared to an Infantry:
    It is in Player Help.

    @Baron:

    At the bottom of this post, wodan put a few numbers to get the strength of Classic, Revised and G40 Tank.
    Is there any maths genious who can sort out the equation he used?
    IMO, it may be near Enigma formula.
    Thanks.

    @wodan46:

    @Veqryn:

    KEPT the tank at the pre-revised stats of 3-2-2-5

    Hmm.

    For 20 IPCs
    4 Tanks=12 Attack, 8 Defense, 4 Hits
    5 M-Infantry=5 Attack, 10 Defense, 5 Hits

    For 21 IPCs
    3 Artillery, 3 Infantry=12 Attack, 12 Defense, 6 Hits
    7 Infantry=7 Attack, 14 Defense, 7 Hits

    Interesting.  That actually works a lot better.  Tanks are still clearly the best way of projecting offense, but M-Infantry are better at securing territories.  Artillery/Infantry are the best all around force, but move slower, and Infantry have the best defense/health, but have pathetic attack and move.

    Also, M-Infantry are going to be really bad for Invasions, as when transported, they are the same as Infantry, but take up the better slot of the Transport and cost more.

    In fact, the full statistics are below:

    1 Movement Force
    Infantry=1.40 Attack, 2.80 Defense, 1.40 HP
    Infantry/Artillery=2.40 Attack, 2.4 Defense, 1.20 HP

    2 Movement Force
    M-Infantry=1.05 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 1.05 HP
    Tanks(Original)=2.52 Attack, 1.68 Defense, 0.84 HP
    Tanks(Revised)=2.52 Attack, 2.52 Defense, 0.84 HP
    Tanks(1940)=2.10 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 0.70 HP
    Tank(Original)/M-Infantry=1.88 Attack, 2.35 Defense, 0.94 HP

    OK, I found he used a 420 IPCs basis/100.

    If I use Infantry as the basic reference: 420 IPCs/140

    If all these units have the same 3 IPCs cost, here is what you would get for:

    1 Movement Force
    Infantry= 1.00 Attack, 2.00 Defense, 1.00 HP
    Artillery= 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    Infantry/Artillery= 1.71 Attack, 1.71 Defense, 0.86 HP

    2 Movement Force
    M-Infantry= 0.75 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    Tanks (Original)= 1.80 Attack, 1.20 Defense, 0.60 HP
    Tanks (Revised)= 1.80 Attack, 1.80 Defense, 0.60 HP
    Tanks (1940)= 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.50 HP

    Tank (Original) A3D2/MI A1D2= 1.33 Attack, 1.33 Defense, 0.67 HP
    Tank (Revised) A3D3/MI A1D2= 1.33 Attack, 1.67 Defense, 0.67 HP
    Tank (1940) A3D3/MI A1D2= 1.20 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.60 HP
    Artillery + MI A4 D4, 2 hits = 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP


    It is also possible to use the Enigma formula with a small addition to get the relative strength between each unit:
    36PowerHP/cost^2= Strength factor
    And since it is all 3 IPCs basis 3^2 = 9, a
    simpler formula of Enigma for  3 IPCs: 4PowerHP = Strength factor

    1 Movement Force
    Infantry= 1.00 Attack, 2.00 Defense, 1.00 HP
    3611/9= 4.00        3621/9= 8.00
    Artillery= 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    361.5.75/9 = 4.50
    Infantry/Artillery= 1.71 Attack, 1.71 Defense, 0.86 HP
    361.71.86/9= 5.88

    2 Movement Force
    M-Infantry= 0.75 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    36*.75*.75/9 = 2.25    361.5.75/9 = 4.5
    Tanks (Original)= 1.80 Attack, 1.20 Defense, 0.60 HP
    361.8.6/9 = 4.32    361.2.6/9= 2.88
    Tanks (Revised)= 1.80 Attack, 1.80 Defense, 0.60 HP
    Simplified formula: 41.8.6= 4.32
    Tanks (1940)= 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.50 HP
            41.5.5= 3.00

    Tank (Original) A3D2 + MI A1D2= 1.33 Attack, 1.33 Defense, 0.67 HP
    41.33.67= 3.56
    Tank (Revised) A3D3 + MI A1D2= 1.33 Attack, 1.67 Defense, 0.67 HP
    41.33.67= 3.56      41.67.67= 4.48
    Tank (1940) A3D3 + MI A1D2= 1.20 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.60 HP
    41.20.60=  2.88    41.50.60= 3.60
    Artillery + MI A4 D4, 2 hits = 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    41.50.75= 4.50


    So, when on the same IPCs basis, the underlying factors in Vann and now Enigma formula was simply:
    PowerHP ( 36/cost^2) = Strength factor
    Assuming Power and HP can be a fraction from reference unit.
    Above, I choose Infantry A1 C3, 1 hit as reference unit.
    And *36 or *4 was simply a factor to get whole number results for Tank C6 and Inf C3

    This give for each ground unit, without this little multiplying factor, these attack and defense factors:

    Ground units:
    1 Movement Force
    Infantry= 1.00 Attack, 2.00 Defense
    Artillery= 1.125 Attack, 1.125 Defense
    Infantry/Artillery= 1.47 Attack, 1.47 Defense

    2 Movement Force
    M-Infantry= 0.5625Attack, 1.125 Defense
    Tanks (Original)= 1.08 Attack, 0.72 Defense
    Tanks (Revised)= 1.08 Attack, 1.08 Defense
    Tanks (1940)= 0.75 Attack, 0.75 Defense

    Tank(Original) A3D2 + MI A1D2= 0.89 Attack, 0.89 Defense
    Tank(Revised) A3D3 + MI A1D2= 0.89 Attack, 1.12 Defense
    Tank(1940) A3D3 + MI A1D2= 0.72 Attack, 0.90 Defense
    Artillery + MI A4 D4, 2 hits = 1.125 Attack, 1.125 Defense

    These values allows to easily compared with Infantry A1 D2 to know below or above Infantry strength a given unit is.
     
    Eventually, it will be possible to derivate this formula from Stack formula (based on Lanchester’s Laws).


    Aircrafts:
    Fighter A3 D4 C10, 1 hit becomes 3/10 in Inf basis=
    0.90 Attack 1.2 Defense, .30 HP
    Strength factor: .90
    .30= 0.27 Attack, 1.2*.30= 0.36

    Strategic Bomber A4 D1 C12, 1 hit becomes 3/12 in Inf basis=
    1.00 Attack 0.25 Defense, .25 HP
    Strength factor: 1.00
    0.25= 0.25 Attack, 0.25*.25= 0.0625

    Tactical bomber A3-4 D3 C11, 1 hit becomes 3/11 in Inf basis=
    0.82-0.91 Attack 0.82 Defense, .273 HP
    Strength factor: .82
    .273= 0.224 .91*.273= 0.248 Attack,
    0.82*.273= 0.224 Defense

    Combined Arms:
    Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D6 C17, 2 hits becomes 3/17 in Inf basis=
    1.235 Attack 1.059 Defense, 0.353 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    1.235
    0.353 = 0.436      1.059*0.353= 0.374

    Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D7 C21, 2 hits becomes 3/21 in Inf basis=
    1.00 Attack 1.00 Defense, 0.286 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    1.00
    0.286= 0.286               0.286

    WARSHIPS:
    Submarine A2 D1 C6, 1 hit becomes 3/6 in Inf basis=
    Regular: 1.00 Attack 0.50 Defense, 0.5 HP
    Surprise strike: 1.50 Attack 0.667 Defense
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    1.00
    0.5= 0.500    0.500.5= 0.250
    Surprise strike:
    1.50
    0.5= 0.750    0.667*0.5= 0.333

    Destroyer A2 D2 C8, 1 hit becomes 3/8 in Inf basis=
    0.75 Attack 0.75 Defense, 0.375 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.75
    0.375= 0.281    0.281

    Cruiser A3 D3 C12, 1 hit becomes 3/12 in Inf basis=
    0.75 Attack 0.75 Defense, 0.25 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.75
    0.25= 0.188    0.188

    1942.2 Carrier A1 D2 C14, 1 hit 3/14 in Inf basis=
    0.214 Attack 0.418 Defense, 0.214 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.214
    0.214 = 0.046  0.418*0.214= 0.092

    1942.2 Carrier Full Fighters A7 D10 C34, 3 hits 3/34 in Inf basis=
    0.618 Attack 0.882 Defense, 0.265 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.618
    0.265 = 0.164  0.882*0.265= 0.233

    G40 Carrier A0 D2** C16, (**2 hits = 1.618034) 3/16 in Inf basis=
    0.00 Attack 2
    31.618034/16= 0.607 Defense, 31.618034/16= 0.303 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.000.607 = 0.00  0.6070.303= 0.184

    Battleship A4 D4 C20, 2 hits, (**2 hits = 1.618034) 3/20 in Inf basis=
    4
    31.618034/20 = 0.971 Attack 0.971 Defense, 0.243 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.971
    0.243 = 0.236                0.236

    Both values for 2 hits Carrier and Battleship are correct since you can use Baron-Larrymarx values /4 and gets the number above.


  • 2017 '16

    I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
    In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
    It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

    Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
    Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

    IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

    Here is a picture.
    I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

    @Argothair:

    Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

    1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

    1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

    There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

    That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 4
  • 3
  • 43
  • 9
  • 21
  • 7
  • 33
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

85
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts