My god- only the frogs could come up with a ‘resistance’ movement based on the principle of falling wine prices. Unbelievable.
Posts made by Imperious Leader
-
RE: Grape Vine Commandos!
-
RE: Taxes
I say remove property tax unless your buying it or selling it. Except keep the one time exemption
No tax breaks for children or married people whatsoever.
No tax whatsoever for over 65 ( no sales tax… nothing that would represent food of basic sustaining articles of life)
Second, no cost for public parking whatsoever by the city/gov
Third, no tax at all but only a larger tax on all good and services (flat) Any deductions due to medical are the only thing you send in and the government tells you what you owe… no more tax accountants … get rid of them all.
No luxury tax
No inheritance tax
No hidden taxes on the utility bill for freaking handicaps and other garbage.
Forgot to add… no exemptions for church or non-profit groups… they still pay the sales tax.
Now people will grow their own food and raise cattle again… but they will have to move to the country because i would not allow victory gardens or smelly chickens in the city.
No bartering either
-
RE: Barbarossa
Actually Patton wanted the Germans to help him do this. He hated the Soviets worse than the Germans who he respected more as soldiers.
German propaganda played up this hope thinking Patton actually had more clout than he did because under the German military tradition a successful military leader did have more clearance for such initiative and they respected Patton as well. And to add the Soviet also felt some tricks were yet to be played by the western allies at some point.
-
RE: Help with a map project
That was my post. You cant make the game accurate based on current information or the game will be too scripted or have playability problems. These games are meant to be light wargames and not uber exact according to every statistic. A game like that would fail.
-
RE: Nazi Germany VS The Soviet Union
IL, I think your argument assumes too much. First, that England would have surrendered. That seems very unlikely. After Hitler broke all of his previous treaties and promises by invading Poland, what assurance could Britain reasonably have that he would honor any armistice Britain could agree to? Absolutely none. Vichy France negotiated because, after all, what choice did they really have? With Britain, on the other hand, Hitler either needed to commit to a full-scale invasion and put the USSR on the back burner, or vice versa. He could not realistically do both. Absent an invasion of England, actual or realistically threatened, I don’t think England would have surrendered.
Your argument also assumes that England (and the US) would have stood idly by while Germany smashed the Soviet Union. Even as much as the USSR and Stalin were distrusted back before WWII, did they trust Hitler any more? Would having Hitler control all of Europe (save Britain) AND Russia have been acceptable to the US and Britain? I hardly think so. Britain would have found some pre-text to re-enter the war, even if she had signed an armistice.
UK would not have surrendered, but Germany would still have taken the alternative advocated by Admiral Raeder which was to go after British colonies and take Gibraltar and Malta effectively turning the Medd under total axis control.
WE CAN assume the Germans get 1 year to fool around and theirs little doubt that Turkey would be encircled by axis puppet states forcing them to sign on as allies.
England would have fought from Canada trying to get back England… rather than worry about France or any German success in Russia
German control of both Persia and England would have meant no aid going to the Soviets
Hitlers plan was to either defeat the Soviets forcing the British to come to terms and allow Germany a free hand in Europe… or a direct attack on England.
Remember Hitlers actual intention was to defeat the Soviets so England would come to her senses… USA only got in the action after Dec 7th… w/o that FDR could not convince the Americans to save Europa a second time even if England fell. Im sure that after about a year of more incidents American propaganda may have produced a limited war, but not before the Soviet would have fallen.
-
RE: AAE Scenario: Europe 1939 (France, USA, Germany, Britain, USSR, Italy)
Note that Bessarabia should reach to the Black Sea
its not only Bessarabia but territory’s that mostly include it among others, while Bessarabia shares most of the common territory. You see i make maps that consider how making one territory rather than two would lead to other playability issues because if it where one then the Soviets could easily protect it.
Besides its based on AAE and more or less uses the same setup. Its my correction to the issue that Germany can easily take the Soviets. That is why in both versions this territory is the same.
It would help if you knew the larger issues going on in these games rather than comment on Rio De Oro et al ad nauseum. (last part is in Latin)
-
RE: AAE Scenario: Europe 1939 (France, USA, Germany, Britain, USSR, Italy)
Eschaton:
Have you play tested this? What usually happens during the game? explain the typical game for us.
Sounds pretty good.
-
RE: Nazi Germany VS The Soviet Union
So i assume England would have surrendered and Germany spent 1941 taking out the Suez and British colonies. with an additional 50 divisions and 30-35% of additional Luftwaffe available. I can see no issues with a complete collapse of the Soviet Union. Plus control of the Suez would allow the attack against the Caucasus from the Russo-Persian border and possible Turkish intervention. Turkey was leaning toward the Axis anyway and wanted to regain her lost territory after UK took it in WW1.
It would have led to Iraq as a minor axis ally.
Also, Italy need more time to prepare for total war. Control of the Suez would have given Mussolini more prestige and leeway with the king of Italy to make a larger commitment for the war effort.
I think turning the Medd in an axis lake would have brought Spain in the fold…another buffer against the Americans
-
RE: Help with a map project
But you can’t just devalue a territory because “it was never in the war much”. You might as well wipe the USA off the map altogether on the grounds that it was never invaded. The Japanese might have decided to launch an all-out invasion of India if things had gone differently elsewhere, and to limit this battle to just one area is absurd; this would have been a long campaign fought over a wide front.
faulty reasoning… Both American and India represents their actual contribution to the war. If we wanted to deal with potential and hypothetical conquest and a 10 years of invading India… then the game would have to account for this fantasy too. But its just sticking to the fact pattern. Thats why axis and allies is called introductory level.
This is not Avalon Hills Third Reich … its an easier game… its a light wargame.
-
RE: The War Game - Massive Axis and Allies Variant
China has only 2 ships (potentially) a sub and a destroyer… so no they cant build a BB or CV even if they wanted too.
I’m not suggesting that Lende-Lease to Russia is unrealistic; US aid undoubtedly made a huge difference on the eastern front. But in game terms doesn’t it mean that Germany either
a) bangs it’s head against a red brick wall that gets rebuilt with American cash every turn, or
b) is forced to go all-out to KO Russia early on at the expense of other fronts, or see the Soviets get too strongThis is not what happens… Soviets fall in 4-7 turns… in fact they only last longer about 20% of the time. Thats one of the flaws i pointed out regarding not enough Russian territories to retreat to.
The main point of the Soviet Xenophobia rule is to prevent the UK/US from piling up that huge infantry stack in Karelia to defend Russia. If they can just buy units for Russia the problem comes back in another form. As IL has admitted, Russia is better defended by being bigger (in terms of areas) so that it’s not a simple question of each side building up the biggest stack possible to take/defend Moscow.
Soviets still play even of Moscow falls… but everything west of Moscow has most of the income so basically their are much more limited once Moscow falls.
On the subject of start time of 1942 depicted in the photos, there appear to be some anomalies. Italian East Africa not UK occupied? Algeria German occupied, but not other French colonies? Why isn’t the strangely named “West Africa” (Niger and Chad) UK occupied?
Phillipines Japanese occupied, but not Burma? No Japanese in Peking? Or is that a British opium salesman standing there.
Maybe it represents the situation in some strange 13th month of 1942 when everything went haywire.Yes… the map represents 1939 so that can be played… the 1942 scenario is the world with germany having overrun most of Europe. West Africa is under vichy control.
AS i keep saying look at the set up sheets the game starts in like Jan-June 42…Japan has already taken some places but not others.
As i pointed out before the territories are 1939 borders. IN the first half of 1942 they were getting started. Since the turn represents the entire first half of the year everything you mention is safe from criticism and all other issues are play balance.Sweden is worth HOW MUCH?! That’s more than the combined Volga-Don-Caucasus region!!!
its neutral so dont worry about it. When you buy it you can change it to 1
Spain is worth Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
its neutral so dont worry about it. When you buy it you can change it to 1
Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman were just desert. Not even much oil at this time.
its neutral so dont worry about it. When you buy it you can change it to 1At least India is given a respectable value, even if it is shorn of Pakistan and needs at least two more divisions.
The next version will have India with 10,000 ports and 5.5 million territories and 200 IPC
What is that rebel flag doing in the north west corner of the board?
What?
-
RE: 15,000 posts…
I like the idea of counting down the posts backwards. Each post becomes -1 from 15K total.When it reaches zero you just start over. Then the post count wont make any difference because he has no meaning anyway.
-
RE: AARHE: Map files
Lets use your BBG links in their place. If you can get them ill change my sticky to correspond to the links.
-
RE: The War Game - Massive Axis and Allies Variant
Yes, but around turn 5 the us economy was at 170 or so and they were giving 50+ to Russia. So that’s an additional 3 Inf and 2 Arm each turn… Also Russia was buying artillery with lend lease and that rendered my (German) airforce impotent on the eastern front.
The Americans are limited on what they can send to the Soviets on the first turn. Thats posted on the log in sheet thats on the site. I remember some money going to UK, China and Soviets… about 24 to the soviets… also USA usually can send about 49 bucks total to her allies. Germany also can lend money to Italy, but Italian units cost more
-
RE: Help with a map project
There comes a time when realism has to give way to playability and fun.
If you want playability then make India impassible and a non-factor in the game
If you want fun make the map without India, assuming a tidal wave took it out just before Dec 41…so you don’t have to deal with it.
Make Sinai into two parts
And Rio De Oro now has nukes.
-
RE: The War Game - Massive Axis and Allies Variant
China added as independent power. Can’t buy the idea of China building battleships. Even if we use the fiction of a United China, it was far from an industrial power. I much prefer the idea of rival Chinese factions controlled by the USSR and USA respectively.
They cant build those ships unless they spend all their money on a major factory and then spend all their money on the battleship that is more expensive than anybody else and will in fact require 2 turns to do it. Thats 3 turns no builds of infantry…and by that time Japan wins the war in China… THUS that is NEVER done or even CONCEIVED. and we dont want to not allow what potentially could happen… nor do we want to piss of the Chinese.
No Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. This is essential if you want a game playing out anything like WWII.This is true. I have house rules to cover this. Jeff has some too and he will post them.
Major and minor factories. Don’t see the need for this, just limit production to IPC income of the territory.
NO not true its very important because the types of units are limited by them and also that would not solve Germanys problem when they are left to bunker… if the IPC thing was imposed they would be left with more money and no place to build units.
Building factories; using captured complexes. Just both completely wrong. When France was liberated the new French army went back to war using American uniforms, vehicles and equipment. It was more efficient to ship them across the Atlantic from established production lines than re-establish French production.
each turn is 1/2 year in that time it could get back to normal real quick. don’t agree.Lend-Lease. This seems too powerful, I prefer a more risky transport-IPC-via-convoy system which the Axis can actively intercept.
Yes but the game is not world in flames either . its introductory with a few new ideas.As I’ve stated many times before I don’t like the non-combat-movement phase. In war ALL movement of war material is a combat move. I would limit this purely to aircraft landing, and train movement.
Thats what it becomes anyway
Different unit costs per nation. I prefer to reflect this in base IPC income levels.
NO because it does not reflect that nations actual ability to raise infantry based on its population . A Russian life is cheaper than a British.Artillery/AA gun hybrid. No, sir. The principle role of artillery was to soften up land defences, not shoot down aircraft.
Artillery in this game represent all types of which AA guns are a form of Artillery
Tank blitz. Can’t believe Jeff couldn’t come up with something better than the obsolete blitz move from official A&A. As I’ve detailed elsewhere something along the lines of a pass-through move for tanks simulates blitzkreig warfare nicely.
Blitzkreig rule does not work for territories that are as large as entire nations. Perhaps in an operational level game.
Stop-drop transports. Another hangover from ye ancient A&A manual that makes no sense. WHY can’t a transport unload into two territories if able?
They cannot invade two different territories… they can perform bridging however.
Why can’t amphibious assaulting units (or defenders) retreat to sea if they have available transports?
You cant have everything for 100.00 bucks
Order of battle. Can’t find this in the rules, but why not just let the defender choose the order in which combats are resolved? OK, after a few plays most people will dump the battleboard, but simultaneously fighting all adjacent battles must get hard to track, especially when considering pass-throughs. Defender decides first eliminates the flanking attack menace much more simply.
You didn’t read the rules correctly, The attacker is obligated to ask the defender to make retreat first and the defender can also perform partial retreats. This aspect of the game is very good.
Infantry placement seems very powerful; I severely limit this ability with only a few designated depots to be used.
Whats powerful about it? its basically like Revised
It occurs to me that building ships at sea is absurd. Ships should be built at an IC same as any other unit. The NEXT turn you can “launch” the ship into a neighbouring sea zone, together with cargo if applicable, thus simulating the longer build time of warships.
The game does not feature those dreaded 5,000 ports because its assumed that any SZ adjacent from the factory can support a port and launch ships. Ships are only built at factories, while minor factories cant build carriers and battleships. Its much easier than your system.
I agree with Dezrtfish, the pay-money-for-invading-neutrals rule seems like another vestigial leftover from classic. We want neutral armed forces.
The idea of tanks being wiped out by viscious sand dunes and angry mountain ranges is hilarious. Prefer defensive bonuses in combat.
-
RE: 15,000 posts…
15K should be Inpostdrial Complex or “I type too much”
-
RE: The War Game - Massive Axis and Allies Variant
9. I do not care for the Neutral rules. I will be playing a couple more games to be sure, but I will probably go to a system of Armies for neutrals. I prefer something similar to the system in World at War.
Jeff is working on something for that. His original intention was to keep them out of the game and only allow the neutrals under German occupation to have any play.
The neutrals should have their own armies. I have some house rules for them and ill post that soon when the forum goes up.
I would stay away from advanced rules until you got your strategy down.
on the lend lease remember only USA can do it and they are limited to 1/3 of their total income… the first 15 IPC spend can be infantry but the 16th IPC onward must be ‘hardware’ —no infantry…
USA can play a strong role against Japan. Also, you have to keep the German and Italian navy ready to counter the allies as they approach Europe… keep buying those subs and destroyers. USA can upgrade the factory in Alaska and build a huge 1 turn fleet to attack Japan. Watch that.
Get some more D12’s and use the long box to roll. Its perfect for a dice roller
I really think the game is a great value for what you get. Especially for such a small time company.
And now you also have nice tiger tanks for Bulge and for house games.