UK and ANZAC planes can’t claim Dutch territory to allow their power to collect income from them, but they can land in Dutch territory whether or not the territory is being activated by ground unit(s).
Posts made by ColonelCarter
-
RE: Question About Friendly Neutrals
-
RE: Bidding for OOB
I tested a couple of solo games with a 20 bid (spent on ground); CPs didn’t win either, so now I know where Flashman’s coming from. I’m just not sure that changing movement rules is the best option, seeing as the PTR need extra Russians so they don’t die horribly.
-
RE: Problems I am having with going KJF
Well to be fair, as long as Japan parks at least 3 subs off UK Pac territory that they can’t kill, India will be trading a small amount of income for the ability to attack the Japs and support China. But I think another important factor between a J1 and a J4 is time. Not only does India have 8 more units on the board by the time of the DOW, but they have 18 extra IPCs from turn 3 income, probably some more than the 6 for India+Burma T4, and the IJN is now just getting busy in the south, and it will have to move further west out of position and/or sacrifice much more air for a timely capture of India. Meanwhile America now has a much easier time moving up (Carolines might be a decent option in this scenario as it threatens Japan, Philippines, and Chinese coast, and Japan will be in shorter supply of blockers needing more ground investment for a stronger India)
For a J4, if you move your fleet south to protect your transports and keep the DEI, America can advance sooner than normal, but if you don’t, the allies can begin contesting the DEIs right away.
Contrast that to a J1 where you grab the islands J1 and J2, clean up Malaya J3 and bring your navy back to the Philippines J4 just as the first “extra” Americans reach Hawaii.Of course, this leaves the European theatre isolated and Germany will probably roll over Russia barring huge US & UK air buys in rounds 3-5 (UK earlier if possible), but assuming the US managed to stop Japan, they can now switch to heavy Europe spending to try and salvage that theatre. Against a J1 (bidless) the US could still be needing to spend a large chunk of their income even into round 7-9 before they can destroy the IJN.
I guess to summarize, while I am a firm believer that the Allied situation is not as dire as some paint it to be, the Axis have a good span of strategies that, when executed correctly, give the Allies virtually no chance at victory barring perfect play.
If we try to go to the root of the problem ('K’JF being virtually a necessity for victory), I think it’s that darned 8/6 VC rule. If this got compressed into a 12 or 13 VC across the map victory, or maybe just bumping Japan’s VCs up to 7, I think the game could support a wider variety of Allied play.
-
RE: Fighters attacking naval units.
Nope, since there’s only 1 movement phase, every units stays where it ends, and thus fighters can’t attack naval units since they can’t land in sea zones.
-
RE: Bezerk Russian Strategy
I meant the OOB optional rule. Forces Russia to spend armies contesting 3 of the territories adjacent to Moscow to prevent the loss of their army without killing any Austrians. Otherwise Germany has to suicide its eastern contingent to get Austria able to take Moscow with only a couple units that will easily get overrun by Brits from India or Karelia.
-
RE: Bezerk Russian Strategy
From a CP perspective, you wanna hit the Russian superstack with germany first as you can then reinforce with AH. Going AH first, will most likely end up with huge loses for AH.
Not really, if you send your own Austrian superstack big enough to get ok ratios against the Russian one, which is no less than every Austrian on the board. Plus, when Russia is forced to retreat from the Austrians, the German contingent in the east can move up and claim vacated territory.
Russian Revolution rules are necessary to give the CPs something better than mutual annihilation, though. I prefer also giving the CP the option to decline the armistice.
-
RE: Bezerk Russian Strategy
Sounds like your CP opponent made the mistake of splitting both Austria’s and Germany’s efforts to both fronts. While I personally don’t think the CP can win OOB without Allied mistakes, going medium with two powers against Russia is never going to work (unless they do something stupid like buying straight ships). If the CP really want Russia, Austria can have their entire starting army (minus ~5 inf for losses in Serbia & Romania), 1 round of ground, (2 inf 5 art for max punch) plus 1-3 fighters to attack Ukraine on AH’s third turn. That’s 45 inf and 17 air supremacy artillery; enough to force out even a max retreating Russia and make a solid attack on Moscow AH4. But from your description, Russia’s out at least 13 of their starting armies, so Austria will have plenty of troops left over after taking Moscow, possibly enough to push south and take India, definitely enough to help Ottomans hold Persia for quite awhile.
-
RE: Rethinking Air Units
CC you model shows the point that any unit on the boards odds of scoring go up as more of the same unit is applied. The pick the best of 2 dice provides a cap so you don’t have 2D6 heavy bombers. The point I’m trying to make is that we don’t roll out tanks one at a time so why the bombers?
No, it doesn’t. I compared 2 separate bombers (4 dice total) to 4 dice thrown at the same time. They should have the same probabilities of every outcome if what you claim is true, but they don’t. Rolling multiple bombers at the same time allows ones that score “multiple” hits to cover for those that get none, thus raising the average hits.
@Der:
I really don’t care for the “pick the best dice” mechanic - regardless of the math.
What if Strategic bombers attacked @ 2 or even 1? Do you think people would still buy them @ 12 IPCs for strategic bombing purposes? Or is attacking @ 3 enough? I might still attack units with them @3 because of their superior range.
I don’t care for it either. It’s clumsy, forces you to roll them separately, and requires the extra restriction against sea attack. Reducing their normal attack to 2 I think could work for the combat department. They can still work if you need a tad extra firepower, but they’ll generally deal more damage on SBR. Attacking @1 would definitely warrant a reduction in cost; you might have to reduce them to 11 anyway for attacking @2.
Though this could solve the fact that people avoid SBR since it could cost them their expensive, high-powered bomber, another problem I feel is that instead of losing ~1/6 of your bomber squadron each raid, there’s just a 1/6 chance you’ll lose the entire squadron to Anti-Aircraft fire (before they even drop a bomb!), which is a bit absurd.
Maybe give Strat Bombers a damage counter (attack @1, can’t SBR when damaged), and change AA (against SBR) to rolling a die and dealing shown # damage on a 1-3?(Radar roll 2 dice) Then you can pay 1 IPC per damage to repair them like factories.Hmm…
-
RE: Rethinking Air Units
If you roll multiple bombers together and just cap the max hits at the # of bombers, you won’t change the probability that the bombers will score at least one hit (what i think toblerone is getting at), but you do actually raise the probability of scoring more hits.
Some basic stats so we’re clear:
2d6 (1-4 hit, 5-6 miss, max 1 hit)
2/32/3 =4/9 chance of scoring “2” hits (only 1 counts)
2/31/3+1/32/3=4/9 chance of scoring 1 hit
1/31/3=1/9 chance of scoring 0 hits
overall 8/9 chance of scoring a hitRolling 2 of these bombers separately:
8/98/9=64/81 chance of scoring 2 hits
8/91/9+1/98/9=16/81 chance of scoring 1 hit
1/91/9=1/81 chance of scoring 0 hitsNow, rolling 4d6 (1-4 hit, 5-6 miss, max 2 hits)
2/32/32/32/3=16/81 chance of scoring “4” hits (only 2 count)
(2/32/32/31/3)4=32/81 chance of scoring “3” hits (only 2 count)
(2/32/31/31/3)6=24/81 chance of scoring 2 hits
these total to 72/81 chance of scoring 2 hits
(2/31/31/31/3)4=8/81 chance of scoring 1 hit
1/31/31/31/3=1/81 scoring 0 hitsAs you can see, lumping bomber dice together raises the chance of scoring higher numbers of hits, but it does so by lowering the chance of scoring a lower number of hits, while the chance of missing altogether stays untouched. Thus, to avoid this rise in average hits, you have to roll each bomber’s 2 dice separately from each other.
-
RE: Is the Axis Advantage it's overwheling Air Power?
But it’s not Germany having too few planes to be a threat that makes the US spend mostly Pac side, it’s Japan’s huge number making them a larger threat that does so. Sure, adding some planes to Germany would make them enough threat to demand US attention, but then Japan will most likely be too strong to stop. Removing some planes from Japan also makes Germany a comparably larger threat, encouraging the US to split its income, while making the Axis slightly weaker, not stronger.
-
Bidding for OOB
So the game has been out for over a year now, with a general consensus that the OOB setup favors the Allied Powers. Many efforts have been made to modify the rules or mechanics to enhance play and balance, but if we were to go back to the traditional A&A balancing method of a bid (one unit per territory, must contain units already belonging to that power) for the Central Powers, what do you think would be an appropriate amount? Would you add any other restrictions/allowances to the bid placement?
I think 9 might be a good place to start. It gives the ground options for immediate heavier offense (2 art), long-term potential offense (fighter), or most immediate material (3 inf), as well as a medium naval buy (cruiser), or a mix (sub/transport+inf). 12 gives the most flexibility since everything but cruisers cost a factor of it, but I feel 12 IPCs on the front line could swing the balance over too much.
Thoughts?
-
RE: Russia DOW Japan round 1?
Russia DOWing Japan (or Japan DOWing Russia) does not change the Mongolian situation: that is only based on who invades enemy territory next to Mongolia (including Korea for Russia) first.
So, while it might have some psychological effects to not declare war, doing so means you can reinforce China whenever you want, and also lets Americans move troops/planes into Russian far east territories as soon as Japan declares war on the western powers.
-
RE: G40 Halifax Rules
Next step for us would be to make the full xml gamefile (rather than just an edited saved game), with the full faction name Commonwealth, a chosen color for territories and units, and a Roundel. A new gamefile is also necessary to get all 3 production facility types available. But until then you can still play around with the savegame if you like, just load it into your saved game folder in tripleA to see the core changes under Halifax.
Wait no longer! I made a gamefile for both Option 1 and 2 Halifax rules. It’s just ANZAC colored for now, but that is a simple change if a general consensus prefers a different color. TripleA even comes with a Commonwealth Roundel in the default game files, so that choice was simple. The only new rules that must be player enforced are the restriction on building units costing more than 10 from minor factories, as well as the Commonwealth having two capitals. (I just made Ottowa the Commonwealth capital, because how often does it really get taken?)
Here is a mediafire link since the forum won’t allow attachment of this size:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/fp2z76r282ukq8d/World_War_II_Global.zip
Note to Users: I highly recommend saving a backup of the original World War II Global.zip file somewhere so you have something to restore to if something somehow goes wrong in the transfer. Other than that, all you have to do is replace the normal .zip file with the one linked and the maps should show up in your game list the next time you start TripleA.
Also, to Young Grasshopper: There is a fighter in Ontario added to the setup, correct? I know you’re probably used to playing with it by now, but it’s not in the setup modifications section of the original post. Neither is all Major ICs (except India) becoming Industrial Complexes, but that’s more intuitive.
And, some pics of the new game.
-
RE: Scramble question (pic) and thoughts on weird game
So, if the UK doesn’t have any planes at the moment, then they won’t be able to land out of sz 112 if I have a plane correct?
Correct, they will be forced to stay on the US transports if you scramble a plane against their amphibious assault. Watch out for the US bombing your airbase to prevent you from scrambling, though.
-
RE: Scramble question (pic) and thoughts on weird game
You can’t scramble on the US’s turn, because no amphibious assault is occurring then. However, if the Brits try to offload for an amphibious assault on their turn, you can scramble and prevent it (provided the Brits don’t send air/naval into SZ112 to protect the assault), but don’t get to kill the transports, as they are not British and technically are not participating in the attack.
-
RE: Help! Russian/Japan Question
The relationship between Japan and Russia has no effects on the politics of every other nation. Also, since the Mongolian rules are based on invading territories, not DOWs, there is essentially no reason other than psychologic effects not to declare war on Japan on R1.
-
RE: Taking ipc
Just to be clear, only the income is changed when territory is captured, the IPCs aren’t exchanged between the powers’ banks. So when Germany takes Ukraine, their income marker is moved up and they will gain those extra IPCs at the end of their turn during their collect income phase, while Russia (with say 35 IPCs in the bank) will still have 35 IPCs when it comes to their purchase phase, but if they don’t retake Ukraine or any other territory, they will only collect 33 at the end of their turn.
-
RE: Reduced cost for tanks?
Tanks are pretty expensive, but well worth it if you can acquire large droves of them. And by large droves, I mean over 50% of your army’s IPC value, and only if you are clearly on the offensive. To be able to attack an enemy’s major stack, you are definitely going to need a larger value army since infantry are still very efficient on defense. If you go with the 1 tank=2 inf comparison, let’s look at a couple scenarios of an attacker with 150% value over the defender, with LL for consistency.
Straight inf:
30 inf vs. 20 inf—> 20 inf/10 inf
no counterattack
20 inf vs. 10 inf—>15 inf/4 inf
no counterattack
15 inf vs. 4 inf—>13 inf Remaining attacker value: 39 IPCIf the attacker has 2/3 value in tanks:
10 inf, 10 tank vs. 20 inf—>10 inf, 10 tank/14 inf
14 inf vs. 10 inf, 10 tank—>8 inf/5 inf, 10 tank
5 inf, 10 tank vs. 8 inf—> 5 inf, 10 tank/3 inf
no counterattack
5 inf, 10 tank vs. 3 inf—> 5 inf, 10 tank Remaining attacker value: 75 IPC (72 if defender counters the second time, but then you get the TT sooner)You end up with nearly double the remaining unit value left. However, the weaker defense means the defender can attack first to kill a bit more:
20 inf vs. 10 inf, 10 tank—> 13 inf/3 inf, 10 tank
3 inf, 10 tank vs. 13 inf—> 3 inf, 10 tank/ 9 inf
9 inf vs. 3 inf, 10 tank—> 3 inf/1 inf, 9 tank
1 inf, 9 tank vs. 3 inf—> 1 inf, 9 tank Value: 57 IPCBut you still don’t have to replace as much. Finally, tanks allow multinational armies to work very nearly as effectively as single-nation armies. Say France has a similar value army compared to Germany, but is comprised almost 100% tanks, and Britain/America have >50% value of France’s army in infantry, it can function exactly the same as the scenarios above, because the attacker takes on average 0 casualties, and the allied infantry can just move in after the initial attack is made to defend the tanks. (The supporting infantry won’t be able to attack though, so each tank attack will do slightly less damage and require more defensive support to discourage enemy counterattacks)
Of course, these scenarios ignore artillery, so a mix of infantry and artillery will probably take fewer losses than straight infantry, but they will never be able to completely nullify offensive losses like tanks. And unfortunately, games are probably decided by the time someone acquires this many tanks, except maybe the Brits finishing the Ottomans.
-
RE: TL DR Rulebook: a project to create an easier to read rulebook
@CWO:
Just out of curiosity, what does TL DR stand for? I’ve looked at the text of the posts and I can’t figure out from them what the acronyms represents. (I had my coffee later than usual this morning, so perhaps I’m just missing something obvious.)
Too long; didn’t read.
That said, Appendix should go at the end; Index at the beginning.