I never managed to get the online working with my friend. We could never connect to each other.
Posts made by kdfsjljklgjfg
-
RE: Hearts of Iron 3
-
RE: What do you do with italy???
@frontovik,
I really don’t know how your games go, I rarely see more then a single fighter in Egypt.The way I play UK, I land the Tac in Egypt, and bring over the Malta and Gibraltar airplanes, then put an airbase on Egypt so I can scramble in defense of the fleet.
-
RE: How to play Japan!?
Hammer China as best you can for the first 2 turns. Don’t provoke the US into war unless you know you can cripple them or take another capital that very same turn.
Also key is to ensure that you take the DEI quickly and efficiently. Once the British/ANZAC navies are defeated, they’re very difficult to retake.
-
Largest single turn IPC Increase?
Just out of curiosity, what was the biggest single turn increase in IPC’s (not counting NO’s), you guys have ever had?
With Japan, I took all of the DEI’s excluding Sumatra, the Phillipines, Kwangtung, 3 Chinese territories, and FIC in one turn to raise Japan by 21 IPC’s in one turn.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
Can Kamikazes be used on transports, even if the event in question is sea combat, where the transports are uninvolved?
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
Since, in that example, Egypt was friendly territory at the time, the movement is not considered blitzing. Blitzing is moving into a hostile space before entering a second.
-
RE: Best (most fun) Teams in 2v2
Other. I always do UK/ANZAC/Russia and US/China/France
UK and ANZAC are politicially tied, as well as often strategically, and once the US gets involved, they’re doing the most out of anyone.
-
RE: Can you set-up without the charts?
I could probably do all of UK, US, Italy, Russia, China, and ANZAC
-
RE: New Carriers - For Better or For Worse?
The problem I see with the 2 hit option is it takes away one of the perks of the BB. Now all capital ships add an ablative wound? I liked the older system where ablative wounds were the reason to get bbs.
The way I see it, battleships still have big value over carriers.
For 4 extra IPC’s, you add 4 on attack, 2 more value to defense, and shore bombardment.
-
RE: Randomization system
Well since the income is changed, that hardly matters. In the end, we just felt that their position on the board works out better as a major than a minor.
-
RE: What about Falklands and St. Helena?
What purpose would the Falkland islands serve at all? Nobody really used Malta until it got an airbase and a fighter, and that’s in a strategically important location.
-
Randomization system
So my friend and I were out to make a system of the game where you count up the IPC cost of each unit on the board and let each nation rebuy their units.
In the end, this ended up spawning a system in order to randomize a Global 1940 game with random country teams, random income, and where you get to create your own starting setup.
The setup:
We split the countries into 6 majors and 4 minors. The teams are randomly chosen by whichever method you would care to have them randomized. For the sake of an even amount of minors and majors, the UK was split into UK and India as 2 seperate nations. They are aligned as follows:
Majors:
Germany
UK
Russia
US
Japan
ItalyMinors:
India
ANZAC
France’
ChinaEach player would draw 3 majors and 2 minors.
At this point, we would decide incomes.
The major powers of a team would end up having a collective income of 160, and the minors would have a collective income of 40. At this point, we would use a website to get a random number to give the total income for each nation.
We would get a random number from 30-80 for each major country, and 10-30 for each minor.
For the minors, naturally you randomize one and the other gets the difference, and for the majors you would need two, and re-adjust the randomization number in order to prevent the third nation from going under the minimum roll. (For example, an 80 roll on the first number, and you would make the new randomization number between 30-50 in order to ensure that the leftover is at least 30 out of 180).
In order to adjust the income of the nations without going through and fiddling with each territory on the board, the capital of each nation was boosted or subtracted from until the sufficient total income was reached. For example, in our game that we played, Germany rolled 66 as a total income, and Berlin was boosted by 36 IPC’s as a result. Granted, this makes capitals absurdly valuable in some occasions, but it was the simplest method, and players tend to protect their capitals largely anyway.
We found out that split in half for two teams, the total value of units on the board came out close to 1300, but we decided upon 1200 total IPC’s for buying for each player. At this point, we took turns each spending 100 IPC’s for 12 rounds until the board was filled. You would have to make an attempt to use up all of your money, but we decided in the end if you have 1 or 2 IPC’s remaining, it may be deposited into the starting cash of any of your nations.
After this, we randomized the turn order, then got playing!
General rule changes:
In order to keep majors major and minors minor, as well as prevent any one nation from having so much cash spent on it that it becomes an unstoppable juggernaut, we imposed the following limits:
You must spend at least 200 IPC’s toward the deployment of each major country, and no more than 500 IPC’s.
You must spend at least 100 IPC’s toward the deployment of each minor country, and no more than 200.In addition, although starting bases and complexes on the board remained in position, more were allowed to be bought.
Furthermore, to address the potential issue of “I’m the USA deploying ships in the mediterranean” or something else absurd, the requirement was made that Naval units could only be placed within a sea zone adjacent to an Industrial Complex. They could be placed 1 sea zone away from an Industrial Complex but only on the condition that they are not adjacent to a hostile territory.
We ended up deciding that it would be best to consider the Japanese-controlled territories in China as being originally Japanese owned. This would make things much simpler should a situation occur where they are drawn to be on the same team.
In addition, China’s restrictions upon unit purchasing and unit movement were lifted in order to have them fair as a minor rather than an underpowered waste of a nation. They were given a capital and major IC in the province of Anhwe, as this was the closest available province to the capital of Beijing.
The AA guns, IC’s, airbases, and naval bases on the board remained in their natural positions except for China, as noted above, and ANZAC was given a major IC in their capital.
Since we couldn’t well have neutrals remain the same with pro axis, pro allies and pro neutral with nobody necessarily being axis or allies, we changed them as follows:
No neutrals are pro-either side any more. Every neutral is treated as a true neutral.
Attacking a true neutral no longer makes all other true neutrals into pro of the opposite side.
In order to prevent the ransacking of every neutral in sight for cash, the amount of infantry in each neutral territory was doubled.In addition, to address the issue of the Dutch East Indies, they are now treated as neutrals. We based the troops on the islands upon the ratio of IPC value:troops for most other nations. We ended up concluding that on most occasions, the general value was at or very close to 2 IPC’s per 3 troops. Therefore we put 6 each on Sumatra and Java, and 4 on Celebes. We then doubled the garrison as with other neutrals, for a total of 12 on Sumatra and Java, and 8 on Celebes.
Other than the stated changes, we operated under the Alpha 2+ ruleset, unless I forgot to post another change of ours, but I believe I’ve gotten everything.
-
RE: Fresh Slate Restart?
Also, you are suggesting taking the total sum of IPC worth of the starting pieces and perhaps distributing that differently (eg. instead of 4 inf, you can get 2 tanks or 3 art). That might be cool, especially for Japan or Russia that get a lot of infantry but very few tanks. Does that apply to ALL different units? For example, could Japan trade in 2 fighters (20 IPCS) for another Battleship (20 IPCs), or visa-versa?
That was the plan.
Japan was trickier since their navy really had no business anywhere but the Pacific since all their possesions were in the Pacific and Eastern Asia. However, with your formula of adding up the net IPC worth of starting pieces and exchanging them for others, that would fix that problem. Japan could reduce their massive navy in favor of more land and air units for attacking China and Russia. You know what, I might just try that out. Also, Germany might not need as many land units so they could get more navy and air. Thanks for the idea!
You’re welcome!
-
RE: Italy Building Fighters Working Well.
Not to mention that SItaly is the captial…I think its pretty important that the allies hold there over NItaly.(although NITaly is closer to Moscow)
To be fair, I always like to hit NItaly once as Allies in order to knock that complex down to a minor and limit Italian ground troop production.
-
Fresh Slate Restart?
I would post this under House Rules, but I’m moreso trying to get others’ opinions upon balance, and less trying to share a ruleset.
But I had the thought with a friend recently of the thought of counting up the IPC value of all of the units on the board for each nation, then basically allowing a re-spend and redeployment of all starting units (but with air/naval bases, AA guns, and IC’s remaining in starting locations, although can be purchased.) Naval units would be restricted to sea zones where the alpha 2+ setup had naval units in them though.
However, naturally, this would change things quite a bit. The inner territories of Germany would be vacant and the fronts would be more loaded up, allowing for a faster, more aggressive attack due to everything already being on the front for the Axis powers.
But on the other hand, the UK can consolidate the Royal Navy, making it very difficult to destroy.
Do you think this would work? Would the Axis become too powerful as a result of frontline deployment? Would the consolidation of the Allied fleets make things too difficult?
Or would a combination of things make this such a massive mess that it wouldn’t even be worth trying?
Basically before I go spending a few hours on it, I want general feedback on if it wouldn’t completely suck.
-
RE: Egyptian Lockdown
If I may interject, I never said a minor IC on Egypt, just an airbase to allow for the planes to defend it and still be able to scramble in defense of the fleet if the need arises. The IC utilized is the South Africa one by way of transport.
-
RE: Egyptian Lockdown
The thing is, while it’s expensive, it doesn’t burn your whole income, so there would still be units going onto England. It’s not like it would be empty as a result of this.
-
Egyptian Lockdown
So I’ve playtested this strategy that I have dubbed the Egyptian lockdown twice thus far on the alpha 2+ setup. Once, Egypt lasted something like 6 turns, the other it didn’t fall in a 10+ turn game. I’d like some feedback on it if there are any ways I can improve upon it though.
Turn 1, UK buys a transport for South Africa and an airbase for Egypt. The fighters from Malta and Gibraltar fly to Egypt and the Tac bomber from the carrier lands there as well. This way they can defend Egypt and still scramble in defense of the fleet if necessary. The 2 inf in South Africa stay there. The transport with the Mediterranean fleet picks up one inf from Egypt and gets him to pro-allied Persia. The French infantry in Syria moves to Trans-Jordan. If you want to hold Alexandria to keep an additional space between Egypt and the Italians, move the ANZAC units up to Alexandria and it should be able to hold against an Italian attack easily. I prefer to do this, as it prevents Italy from using the Ethiopia garrison in conjunction with their main force early. Move the South African destroyer up as well as the French Madagascar destroyer.
Turn 2, UK buys 1 Tank, 1 Mech Inf, 1 Inf. Move the destroyers to merge with the Mediterranean fleet. The South Africa transport ships the 2 inf up to Egypt and the one that put a man in Persia brings 2 back to Egypt. The French Trans-Jordan infantry moves to Egypt. This should have your total number of units in Alexandria/Egypt at 9 infantry (6 UK 2 ANZAC 1 French), 2 Artillery, 1 Armor, 2 Fighters, 1 Tactical bomber. A sizeable force by any means.
From this point, you continue the South African Express going, and alternate purchases of 1 Infantry 1 Mech Inf 1 Tank, with a purchase of 3 Infantry. The Mechs and Tanks can reach Egypt within 2 turns and the extra infantry sits around waiting for the next group of 3 to bring 4 up to Egypt.
In my experience this holds Egypt long enough for the US to take significant pressure off of Egypt with Morocco/Gibraltar landings.
So, opinions? How can I make this better? My main issue is that this is either 13 or 9 IPC every turn off of the London income, and that makes it more difficult to make a landing in France, especially if the British fleet is wiped out G1. Is it worth it to shut down Italy like this or would I be better off going back to primarily spending on France landings?
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
I have a question:
From sz 91 i attacked a german cruiser with english navy in sz 104 and free the sea zone.
During NCM a transport can move through sz 104 free from enemy ships to unload in London?
Moving into territory not owned by yourself or a friendly nation must be done during a combat move.
Can i move also a warship which doesn’t fight during the Combat phase?
Pretty sure you can, but don’t quote me on that. Generally I always save it for non-combat anyway to see how my battles comes out before I know how I want to move things.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
Alright so this is what just happened in one of our games, and we’re PRETTY sure we got it right, but here’s what happened.
Japan attacked the Hawaiian Islands sea zone with 3 carriers loaded with 4 fighters and 2 tactical bombers, a destroyer, and a cruiser. He had intent of launching an amphibious assault.
America defended with 3 scrambled tactical bombers, 2 destroyers, and 7 subs.
America ended up taking out the Japanese destroyer and cruiser (among other things, but those exact casaulties aren’t relevanT) and America took the tacs and destroyers as casaulties.
So the situation we had was, the Japanese fighters couldn’t attack the American subs due to the lack of a destroyer.
All that remained in the sea zone was Japanese aircraft, carriers, and transports and American subs.
My dad, playing as Japan, argued that since subs cannot launch sneak attacks at transports anymore, he could launch the amphibious assault.
My position as well as my friend’s, playing as America, was that the Japanese couldn’t kill the remaining American units, but couldn’t simply ignore them and launch their assault because the American units could still fire back, and the only Japanese option was to retreat.
We ended up going with the latter.
What is the official ruling on this situation?