Topics created by Charles de Gaulle

@Charles-de-Gaulle

Very cool! Please respond to the direct message I sent you. 👍

Sea zone 101 is just absolutely bursting.

@Imperious-Leader

Obviously.

I do attack, quite a lot. Stupid stacks don’t really exist in my games, at least in meaningful levels.

It’s only the starting setup which puts down 25 units (including facilities) in Germany, including strategic bombers that just take up the most amount of space, that are the issue.

@aardvarkpepper Now that you and Marc have talked through so many different aspects that I wasn’t even considering, I must admit, doing the tournament this way wasn’t necessary, and it’s far from being fool-proof. It’ll work, but as you guys pointed out, it doesn’t account for some variables or human choice.

But, my motivation (aside from having fun with everybody that’ll play) is definitely to research how biased the game might be. I’m concerned that there might be significant advantages or disadvantages to certain colors, and if there are, I hope to spot them and make adjustments. I’m thinking that the setup is already pretty well balanced, but I want to put everything to the test, because we’re not sure yet.

I really haven’t given much thought to any of the legal or marketing aspects of actually selling a game, so I’m glad you brought that up as well for me to seriously think about. And make no mistake, I appreciate every argument you’ve given. The mathematical relationships you discussed are part of what made solving this so easy. Your advice is always welcome and helpful.

If I ever think about hosting another tournament or convincing someone to accept the wacky house rules and games we come up with, I’ll be sure to read this thread again. But right now it looks like I’m ready to organize a tournament! So until we meet again, take care gentleman.

I would make a Cruisers 10 and Bombers 15. Battleships fine at 20. I think.

IMG_20200508_195523_hdr.jpg
Chaos in the Balkans:
Hungary and Romania are at war, Germany has annexed Austria, Yugoslavia suffered an unfortunate die role and has been forced to disintegrate into a Pro-Fascist Croatian state and a smaller Serbia. Italy managed to seize Albania without loss, and Czechoslovakia is reinforcing its border with the Nazis.
The UK has pledged to declare war on any power invading Greece.
IMG_20200508_200336_hdr.jpg
Swedish Disaster:
The Swedes attempted to peacefully take over Norway to prevent any major nations from entering Scandinavia, but the plan backfired. Not only did another unfortunate die role cause the Norwegians to resist, but the German and British players were offended by the assault, and Germany turned a blind eye to a British force that liberated the Norwegians and devastated Sweden’s hopes of a powerful, neutral, United Scandinavian state.
IMG_20200508_200349_hdr.jpg
Spain in Flames:
The civil war rages on in Spain, just as a deadly naval encounter ended in mutual annihilation for the Nationalists and Republicans. The free world does not want a Fascist Spain, and the U.S. Player has sent generous air aid to the Republicans. With Franco’s Army of Africa having headed for the mainland, I, as France, took advantage and seized their Moroccan colony. Unfortunately, I earned a -1 diplomacy points for this “aggressive” act.

No, anyone in our local area playing the Axis would have conceded long before that happened.

Marsh

@dazedwit said in Is killing Sea Zone 110 an absolute must?:

@shadowhawk

wow look at you

I said I’m testing out a new strategy. Didn’t say you needed to do it.

Just pointing out where your “strategy” might go wrong.
And quite interested how you get 1/9 chance happening regularly.

I’m with CWO Marc here – I think at the point where you are trying to run a balanced March 1943 scenario, you’re not talking about a few minor revisions to history for game balance; you’re talking about totally re-writing history. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do, but you’ll have to be bolder about your edits.

It’s a little hard for me to read your scenario setup from a wall of text; a graphic or illustration of some kind would be helpful. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made in interpreting your scenario. That said, the problem with your scenario, as I see it, is that there is no credible Axis path to victory. The Axis have to simply wait around and hope the Allies make a mistake. Maybe the Germans can press on to Moscow and get lucky there, but they have no time to build up additional reserves, no way to wear down the Russian economy, and no ability to threaten London, so there aren’t really any strategic choices to be made – just march every man east to Moscow, and hope you get lucky. Similarly, Japan is earning much less than the USA, is not in position to do devastating damage to the US Navy, and is not in position to capture enough of China, Siberia, or ANZAC in time to achieve parity against the US. They can fight over the Dutch East Indies but not hold them, which means that’s a losing strategy for Japan, because it will cost them more in lost transports and destroyers than they earn by holding the islands. Maybe Japan can get lucky against India, but, again, Japan has no real options in this scenario – they have to just send every man west and hope they roll well.

So, if you want a balanced March 1943 scenario, consider some or all of the following changes:

Germany controls and can hold Leningrad

German battles in Stalingrad were inconclusive; Germany still has significant forces in Rostov and Caucasus

Britain lost the Second Battle of El Alamein, resulting in Italian control of Alexandria and Cairo; British forces are defending in Sudan and Trans-Jordan

Italian navy was warned of the Taranto raid, and so more Italian navy survives, maintaining local naval superiority for now in the central Med

America was slow to recover from Kasserine Pass, and holds Morocco but not Algeria

Japan won a bloody victory at the battle of Midway, and so Japan currently has four carriers to America’s two, as well as control of Midway, Wake, and the Aleutian islands

Japan won the battle of Guadalcanal, and so Japan currently has control of the Solomon Islands and both territories in New Guinea

The goal of these changes would be to give the Axis additional (any?) strategic options so that the Axis have multiple credible long-term paths to victory and feel like they are somewhat in control of their destiny, instead of just serving as a punching bag for the incoming Allied invasions. I like the idea of a balanced 1943 scenario very much, but you’re not going to get there by starting with historical 1943 borders and tweaking the unit counts a bit. Contrary to popular belief, the war was lost for the Axis by March 1943; after the Axis failed to knock any of their opponents out of the war and the Allies secured naval lines of supply to France, Africa, and Indonesia, an Axis defeat was just a matter of time. This dynamic, unfortunately, will be well-captured by OOB A&A rules, and will result in your Axis side getting defeated 19 out of 20 games unless you make drastic edits.

I get enough of this crossing out BS from my English teacher.  :lol:

I do get your point.

Daaang, how’d you get 18 players?
I can barely get 4 including me. :(

Anniversary Edition is well-known for being slanted towards the Axis.  This is partly because of China’s weakness and unnecessary special rules that just make new players confused and us veterans upset.  Let’s fix China with some easy changes:

1.  In both the 1941 and 1942 setups there should be 4 infantry and 1 fighter in Yunnan.  This usually saves the fighter, making China fun to play, and also helps to balance the game.
2.  Remember that rule in which China cannot have more than three units in one space? Scrap that.  It only makes things confusing and too hard for China.
3.  China is no longer limited in movement.  Go ahead and attack Burma, sink a Jap (Nips, Japanese, you know what I mean stupid censor) transport off the coast with the Flying Tigers, and march into Russia.  Who’s stopping you?  insert Bruce Lee photo

@Karl7:

In some 300+ G40 games, I’ve never bought a battleship unless the game was already won I could do whatever I wanted.

I can’t remember the last time I bought a battleship in a game. If I am going to spend 20 IPCs on fleet, I consistently purchase a destroyer and a cruiser – this hits on average more often than a battleship, has the possibility of generating two hits on both attack and defense, and might increase the number of units required to successfully attack my fleet (the math on this one is a bit fuzzy since there are so many variables involved in fleet attacks), and gives me an extra unit that I can detach for a separate mission if necessary.

On the other hand, I have purchased AA guns occasionally, when I expect the number of planes attacking to exceed the number of AA shots I currently have available and/or when I need to empty the treasury because I know the capital is going to fall. Other than that, AA guns would be my second least purchased unit.

Tactical bombers are also rare purchases for me, but I do purchase them occasionally (more often than AA guns).

Marsh

Unfortunately, just like in the real war, the most effective unit seems to be the Infantry.  They have the IPM, they are used in territory trading (what I call attacks of attrition), they can be deployed as barriers to protect valuable units in the rear, etcetera.

Tanks, in my opinion, best compliment the IPM benefit of infantry.

Fighters come in third, as they can range out to hit, but cannot take land.  Great defensive units as well.

@Charles-de-Gaulle said in Factories and Facilties—Where, How, When, and Why?:

Does anyone ever consider upgrading the minor IC on Rome to a major?  I usually find that it is not necessary until late in the game, and by that time I don’t want to do it or lack the IPCs.

Nope. I can’t ever fill the 13 units the the Mic and the mic allow, and its too much wasted income the I ties need elsewhere. if italy needs to produce more than 13 units, i feel the game should be over…

@Charles:

If you want to have the full experience, also use this neutral expansion ruleset along with the new powers:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38615.msg%msg_id%

All playtests of this addition of 11 powers used these new neutral rules, and I definitely recommend you play these two house rules together.  It allows for fun things like South Africa invading Portuguese colonies, Bulgaria and Italy invading Turkey etc.

We are currently working on implementing the 20-power ruleset for other Global setups.  If you would like to play this add-on in a Pacific/Europe solo game, I can post the theater rulesets on request.

Charles De Gaulle, has your group worked on any other setups recently besides 20 powers in 1940?  I am formally putting in a request (or fan vote) for 1936 with with 20 powers.  Maybe some of the smaller countries that weren’t conquered by Germany yet could act as pro-allied neutrals.  I just think 20 powers would work well from an early starting point.  More variables to “rewrite” history to some extent.  Anyways thanks for your efforts.

You get a good feel for all the colonial names: Ceylon, Formosa, Rhodesia and of course Siam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvQpdb2jGgs

@hengst not wasted at all. Repetition is what fine tunes these scenarios to make them the best they can be. Keep up the good work

Stroutqb22,
If you ever find yourself in central Jersey, give me a pm.  We are always growing (and unfortunately, losing players)

Barney,
My team put their kiss on the final version of Europe 1939 (Pacific and Global to follow in about a week)  I am not going to overwrite the outdated version (its evolved so much) so look out in house rules for a big update.

Thanks guys for showing some love to a kid who does not really belong with all the adults here.

Taamvan,
I’ll love to participate in a convention, but I really haven’t the time or mobility.  Besides, I will probably be a little out of place with my Churchill jokes when the guys aren’t there to appreciate it.  Again, in Central Jersey, we have several homes we play in and lots of public places for the shy newbies.  For the time being, I can only come to those that live nearby.  Gen Con will have to be somewhere down the annals of life for me.

These are NOT optimal strategies.  They are meant to be funny and either ridicule “standard strategies” or make fun of losing situations.  Let me explain tthem to the best of my abillity:

Germany:
Must kill Russia and not worry about anything else like Sea Lion or Africa.  This comes from many players who believe that taking Moscow early is the only way to victory for Germany.

Soviet Union:
This comes from the classic Russian build up early on which is soon negated by overwhelming German force.  It ridicules those who just stack Moscow instead of trying to counterattack.

Japan:
1 symbolizes the J1 attack which is used more than J2 and J3
2 symbolizes taking the money islands
3 symbolizes getting so rapped up is Asia, that you allow the U.S. to take Tokyo (lol!)

U.S.
This is actually quite true: with the U.S. you must get enough force to defend yourself or make a hole in your opponent.  Then you must get into a great position like Gibraltar or Carolines.  Then eventually you get that great opportunity–wham!

China:
This, of course, is about players who think China is useless.  In my personal experience, I think most people just like to sacrifice Chinese units.  And of course such gameplay will cause Japan to hit Stalingrad and then Russia yells at you.

United Kingdom:
Europe:
Defending is important early but only in the UK itself.  If Germany at least threatens Sea lion, we see UK just defending for awhile.  Then finallly they make a big blow like Rome or Denmark.

Pacific:
This ridicules players who just build infantry and simply put everything in India.  You bet they get bored.

Italy:
This is more of a ridicule of Mussolini himself.  Or Italy after a really pro-UK Taranto dice mow -over.

ANZAC:
Quite true.  The money islands are ANZACs biggest thing they usually can do…and Japan hates that.

France:
I object to explaining this one.