Posts made by KillOFzee

@Hitlers:

1. As the Soviet Union, build up your industry on the first round (either Leningrad or Ukraine to a major IC). All Soviet IC’s aside from Moscow only produce 3 units. This is not enough to slow or halt Barbarossa. You want to stop the Germans at the front, not on the welcome mat to Moscow.

You are not allowed to upgrade these minors to majors because the IPC value of these territories is 2; you need to have a territory value of 3 to place Major ICs

Instead, you could perhaps build a minor IC in Rostov or Ukraine.

@Young:

Take and hold half of China
Take and hold Calcutta
Take, hold and liberate Dutch Islands
…… That should make Japan successful enough.

Japan in a nutshell. Perfect summary.

@Stalingradski:

Pretty sure this was a thread about Kill’s I1 move.

Lately, I haven’t seen the Italian fleet have two transports survive. However, if you did have two, my question is - what did the UK do with the rest of its fleet? If they pulled back into the Indian Ocean, an IC in Iraq or C Persia would become a challenge to hold. S Africa can purchase a transport and teo land units and hit those zones every turn. That becomes worse if the Brit Med fleet chose to go Indian Ocean.

Otherwise, I love the idea in concept. An Italian IC in Iraq in particular would be a hard pill for the Allies to swallow, if reinforced properly.

Thanks, Stalin, for being the only one to actually reply to the post. But if it benefits more than just me, let the tandems fly. The UK decides to attack the troops in Ethiopia with its UK fleet, as well as wipe out the destroyer and transport next to Malta. With the Italian fleet fairly intact, after eliminating the French navy, it could conduct operations near the middle East. This is when I pop my Italian Expeditionary Corps. into Syria.

I agree with you in that an IC is hard to hold, so perhaps the best option would simply be to secure the 3 oil territories for the NO then regroup in Syria. This allows the Italians to pose a significant threat to Egypt, and perhaps secure trans-jordan to block access to the Med.

I think that, unless Japan can get some early strategic footholds, it is easier for the Allies. America can easily outmatch the Japanese navy by turn 3, 4, or 5. Japan needs to buy transports and ground units to take victory cities.

The thing about Japan is that even if it can match the U.S. fleet, it can’t protect its transports from UK and ANZAC. A few subs, bombers, or fighters can destroy Japan’s transports with relative ease. Regardless of what Japan can take in terms of IPCs, if it does not have enough transports to take Sydney or Hawaii, Japan can’t win.

There are two primary ways I see Japan winning; number one, if Germany is doing well enough against the Russians and Atlantic UK. If you can distract America from the Pacific for just a little while, you might be able to secure strategic locations with your transports, allowing you to get an edge when the U.S turns its attention back on Japan. Alternatively, if Japan can secure India quickly, then Japan can turn 100% of its economy to naval, in which case it will overpower the US.

@TheWarNoob:

So I get the overall concept of what I am supposed to do, but what about specific unit strategies. What I like to do is:

G1 is buys 3 subs and a minor IC for Romania, and then move as many units as possible towards the Russia front, primarily in the south.

After that I try to dedicate at least 47 IPCs each turn to Russia, in the form of 5 infantry and 5 artillery to be placed in Germany, and then 3 artillery or infantry in Romania. What ever I have left I try to use to defend the west.

Once I take the factories in Ukraine and Novgorod, I build 3 tanks there every turn. I don’t ever bring Italians in Russia unless they do well in Africa and can come through Iraq.

Is this a sound strategy, or do I need to change it somehow? Any critique is very much appreciated.

With the new convoy disruption rules, it might be wise to purchase an aircraft carrier instead of submarines. Still buy the factory, but station fighters on the AC and move into seazone 109. This will be more effective, especially if you keep the battleship and cruiser alive.

@Spendo02:

Unless I am mistaken, you cannot place IC’s except on territories you start with?

That is only for Major ICs, minor can go on any non island with an IPC value of 2 or more

I have been thinking about a possible move for the Italians, but I am not sure about the consequences. My idea is that on I1, Italy lands 2 infantry and 2 artillery in Syria. Next turn these untis move into Iraq. From there, the Italians could move towards India, Cairo, or Russia, all by the 3rd turn. If they put a factory there, all the more damage it can cause. What do you guys think about this?

@Spitfire38:

So the official rules for alpha +3 take out the 30 IPC bonus? so just original income + NOs?

Yes, but in general, the US will still get at least 20 IPCs from their national objectives, unless the Japanese make specific efforts to cripple the US income.
@wwestpro:

Forgive me if it’s been stated but I wanted some quick clarification.  Are the Alpha 3 rules supposed to supplement what’s been stated in Alpha 2 or are they their own rule set?  In other words, should I be referencing both Alpha 2 AND 3 when playing?  I know Krieg mentioned that these are for global, but I really prefer Alpha 3’s rules over the OOB.  Thank you.

EDIT: I also noticed that the US no longer has the NO of +30 IPCs in wartime.  Is this a mistake?

Alpha 3 is its own complete set of rules. You only need to reference Alpha 3 when playing. However, the core mechanics of the game like attacking and defending and unit statistics are the same as they are in the original rule book. Alpha 3 just modifies some rules and setups.

@Vance:

He is in Hell.

Excellent insight.

Interesting, I like these ideas. Although these might be a little too complex to be implemented in such a broad strategic game. However, I do like the self propelled artillery and elite infantry. I think if you can make each nation more unique, you give new opportunities and make the game more fun. Well done!

@calvinhobbesliker:

Is a “port” simply a territory with a naval base? If so, this means you’re adding to the advantages already given by the naval base?

Yes, a port is any territory with a naval base. And the added advantages would primarily affect land operations.

If UK is not at war with Japan, but decides to attack them early, can the UK player land planes in French Indo China after an attack on the Japs. Also, if Japan then decides to attack the planes in French Indo China, do they lose the 10 IPC NO because they attacked that territory? Thanks.

I’m a kid…

I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.

I was reading the new convoy disruption rules, and I don’t personally like the new changes. It was already hard enough to get 3 subs around England for an entire round of play, and that still only did max 8 damage. With these new changes, not only are you less likely to do 8 damage, you run the risk of wasting 18 IPCs only to do 4 or 5 IPCs worth of damage.

Maybe with the new SBR rules, I guess this makes Germany more inclined to bomb England. But overall, I just think it narrows the gameplay. What do you think?

Perhaps, to make trucks a bit more vulnerable, is make trucks susceptible to raids from enemy fighters and tac bombers. That way, there would be a way to counter the use of trucks, and force players to use them more sparingly. This would make sure that tanks are still being purchased. It might even be enough to eliminate mechanized all together as well.

I suppose I should revise my thinking. What I mean by making China stronger is making it so the British have more involvement in it. If you gave the British more infantry in Shan State or Kwangtung, you would see a larger involvement of the British in China, making the allied control over China “stronger,” rather then the Chinese themselves. If you get rid of the Ruskies up north, then maybe you could remove some of the Jap army in Kwangsi, so the Chinese would have at least one turn with the Burma road completely open. I suppose there are a number of things you could do to encourage more action in China, which I think is the best part of pacific…the epic guerrilla war the Chinese have to wage against the Japs.

@theROCmonster:

I totally agree Killofzee. the problem with that is I think it would hurt the allies way more than the axis since that is 18 less inf for moscow or for the the underbelly of russia when japan gets through china.

You’re right that it wouldn’t be balanced, but if you think about it, if you just play a game of pacific, those 18 infantry aren’t there, and the Japs still get ALL of their units. I think this could be addressed by making the Chinese a little stronger, or by making the UK pacific need to help the Chinese.

If anyone likes strategy games, you have GOT to check out the game RUSE. It is the best WW2 RTS on the planet, better than Company of Heroes IMHO. Look up some trailers on youtube.

@Tall:

KillOFzee,

Interesting ideas, but IMHO adding combat or movement bonuses might be enough to unbalance the gameplay as we know it.

I might suggest you consider a “differrent” way of thinking.  That “cargo” ships can only load and unload at friendly ports.

This is somewhat the same logic as the Imperial Leader suggested for the “Air Transport” rules for use with the coming cargo planes.

Cargo Planes providing non-combat “air transport” must start and end their turns in friendly air bases.

It’s something for you to consider.  And keep up the good work.

"Tall Paul

You’re 100% correct, Paul. All of these benefits would only be allowed during the Non Combat phase. I have edited just now to clarify. Thank you much.