So, correct me if I am wrong, but judging from these responses, completely sealing of Siberia would not severely affect the gameplay. Since that part of the world ends up being static anyways, if you remove the Russians and cut down on the Japanese ground forces, gameplay wont be significantly hampered. The reason I ask this, is because I like to maintain a little more realism in my games, and having Japan blitz through Siberia doesn’t help contribute to that.
Posts made by KillOFzee
-
RE: Annoying Russian Infantry
-
Strategic Ports
I have thought of something that would make logistics a more important aspect of the game. If ports became more important in the deployment of troops, it would create new aspects of the game that would add realism and a little more strategy.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE CONCEPTS ONLY TAKE PLACE IN THE NON-COMBAT PHASE OF ONE’S TURN.
Port drop offs - If a transport drops off units at territory that contains a friendly port, that transport can continue the rest of its moves plus one more due to the ease of unloading. For example, a transport from Japan could unload in Kwangtung, if it is Axis controlled, and return to Japan in the same move.Port Refuels - If a transport passes through a seazone that is adjacent to a territory with a port, the transport receives and extra move (could interpret as that specific move doesn’t count towards the transports movement). Can only occur once per move, so passing through multiple sea-zones with multiple ports would has no benefit. For example, American transports from seazone 101 can pick up units from America and unload them in England from seazone 109 by passing through seazone 106, which is adjacent to the port at Nova Scotia.
Over loading - If a transport picks up units in a territory with a port, that transport is able to “over load,” that is it can carry more units then normal. Over loaded transports can carry the following; 3 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tanks, 1 artillery and 1 tank, or 2 infantry and 1 tank/1 artillery. However, overloaded transports can only be unloaded at territories with friendly ports. Over-loaded transports cannot make amphibious assaults, and would only be used logistically.
With these new rules, I believe the strategic value of many territories would increase, making places like Normandy and Kwangtung more important to player strategies. It could also significantly change the USA strategy, as Gibralter doesn’t become the essential territory it is now. It would also make the Japanese deployment of troops a little easier.
All of this may seem a bit confusing, and whatever feedback you can offer would be great, thanks.
-
RE: Annoying Russian Infantry
I appreciate these responses, but from my point of view, the Japanese end up being forced to keep the units starting in Manchuria and Korea in those territories, which really just benefits Russia, because those 18 infantry have no value to them on the eastern front. How is it possible for the Japs to win a war with China AND the UK when they don’t have a significant land presence to begin with? If you can answer this then maybe the infantry won’t be such a problem.
-
RE: Annoying Russian Infantry
@special:
Mmmm, i never had an army of jap tanks go through Siberia…
If you would make a border like that there, you’d have to make the whole of Siberia one big no passing zone.
In our games Japan takes a few territories there, while the russians retreat (6 of them run back as reinforcements to either Moscow or to counter attack Japanese forces at the Russian-chinese border. The other 12 serve as bait to lure some Japanese troops into Siberia, but enough to stop them from advancing too fast.
personally i prefer japan to take the Nordic route, that would take some pressure off China (where in our games here is usually a lot of action)
so basically: it doesn’t bother me
Yes, Siberia would be one big no Pass zone. The reason this would be done is so the the Japs don’t lose unnecessary amounts of troops to the Russians, who end up attacking because it’s more or less a “why not” scenario. And if the Jap players ferries enough tanks to Siberia, the Russian player will end up with a bunch of japanese tanks at his back door. This is what I don’t like about it.
-
Annoying Russian Infantry
I am sorry, but I want to know if this bothers anyone else. Why is it that the Russians get 18 infantry in the most remote parts of Siberia, when there are less then that number on the Eastern front? What ends up happening is the Japanese, one way or another, get a bunch of tanks to blitz through those territories, gobbling up the IPCs and hitting the Ruskies in Moscow. IMHO this is absolutely ridiculous.
Does anyone think that it would be fair just to get rid of the 18 infantry in the East, cut down on the Japanese forces in Manchuria and Korea, and put an impassable barrier between Amur and the Japanese territories? If this were the case the Russians would get their 2 infantry in Novosibirsk when there at war. If the only way to get to Russia for Japan was through China, it would cause more action to go down in China, which in my opinion, is the best part about pacific. Does anyone else get annoyed when 10 jap tanks end up in Stalingrad at the end of the game?
-
RE: Alpha 3 is out
WHAT A BUNCH OF BS!!!
I thought Alpha 3 was going to make America involved in the European front more, and weaken russia. But now the Axis are SCREWED! AA guns are 3 TIMES AS POWERFUL NOW. The axis airforce is almost completly usless now, and the Russians are STILL AS POWERFUL. Plus, the RUSSIANS should be the ones who are discouraged from attacking Japan, not the other way around!
I am going to play this, but I am seriously doubting whether or not this wil be ballanced at all.
-
RE: What do you do with italy???
In my games, Italy is used mainly to defend. If a tanranto raid happens, the Egypt is practically mine since the Brtish NEED to bring the gibralter fighter to the fight, and if the aircraft carriers is destroyed then the fighter is dead anyways. I clear the rest of the British fleet and secure the Med.
Depending on how Italy is doing, I may or may not send the tank and mech from Tobruk with the inf and arty in Libya into tunisa to get the north africa NO.
Its far more important to get the Middle East, to collect the money there, and threathen both Calcutta and Stalingrad.
But once Italy has around 30 IPCs per turn I start sending Infantry and Artillery into Paris. If the Americans and British land it lets me counterattack easily. With Italy defending europe, i let the Germans focus 100% on Russia.
-
RE: Sea Lion: Is it worth it?!?!?!
The only time I ever do sea-lion is on G2. I build 2 transports and 2 subs G1, and place them in sz 112. This forces the British player to invest completely in the defence of the UK. If he doesnt, I land and take it. Personally, I dont think it is worth it to spend all your reasources in G2 that could be used against, who must inevitabbly be defeated to win. Good thing is, that the navy from G1 can be used later on againt russia.
-
RE: Best House Rules ever!
My favorite house rules are paratroopers and strategic assaults.
Paratroopers would be dropped from bombers and would attack at a 2.
Strategic assaults is more or less an SBR with artillery instead of bombers. -
RE: Has anyone tried using the Revised board with global units?
I came up with the same idea awhile ago, and played it in a couple games. It was very useful because it made the game move along quicker, not having to move infantry one space at a time. I always thought that there should be an “elite infantry” unit who, when dropped by a bomber or when amphibious assualting, would attack on a 3.
-
RE: No Air-Force for the Allies
I guess the German player must have played his cards right, don’t you think. I bet he’s really good.
-
RE: Attacking
@Failure:
Oh, I see now the game was no fun before because the Germans always won in three turns every time we played. Thank you now the game seem like it would be more fun because the allies actually have a fighting chance!!!
Really? “Every time you played” would imply you’ve played it more than once. I doubt that is the case.
-
RE: Best UK defense for Sealion 3 or 4 collaboration
If there is a decent possibility of (above 70%) of taking England on G2, it would be utterly foolish to not take it. Who cares if America is in the war on turn 2, Japan would cripple them in Pearl Harbor anyway. If the British take England right back from Germany, the Germans would just get their money twice. The only time England will be liberated after that is if the Americans take it, and with the UK player gone, it will be easier to defend.
-
RE: Win, lose…draw?
@Young:
If you can’t win and don’t want to continue the game toward an eventual loss, than you should surrender honorably and give your opponent the win they deserve.
If the game ever seems to be going towards an inevitable conclusion (for several consecutive turns) we often just call it there unless it can be completely won in only a few turns.
The only reason I propose this rule is because after playing the game many times, I would much rather continue playing than quit if the Axis can’t win. I agree that the allies deserve to win, but for people who are looking for more fun in their games, and not just the axis player quitting. Everyone knows that If the allies can contain the Germans to Europe or pin Japan to their one Island the game is over. I only give this rule so that the game can sometimes continue.
I only use something like this when I want my defeated opponent to keep playing.
This is the exact reason this idea exists. It’s for the Allies benefit, because they actually get a chance to take Berlin and/or Tokyo instead of cause a surrender. IMO the game is far more fun.
-
Win, lose…draw?
I know one of the worst things about axis and allies is when, during a close game, the axis lose a significant battle near one of there final victory cities, and the game is turned on them. The reason I hate this is because the rest of the game is just the axis player sitting around, playing a pointless game, now that the combined economic power of the allies is significantly greater than the axis. In essence, the game ends there.
I propose the option of a “draw” more or less. Anytime the axis player feels he has no chance of winning he can declare he is going on the “defensive.” At this point he can no longer attack territories, fulfill any national objectives, and have any chance of winning the game. He also only receives half of his regular income. He can however, still make it a tie. If the Europe axis can control Berlin, Warsaw, Rome and Paris for X amount of turns, the game ends with a draw. The Japanese player, must control Tokyo, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Shanghai for the same amount of turns.
That way, the axis player still has a reason to continue playing the game. I guess this is a house rule but I already wrote it here :-P
-
RE: Russia: Defending the far east
I know this is very wrong, but in every game, we agree to get rid of the Russians there, and make it so we can’t cross the Buyarita border for either nations. We cut down on some Jap infantry to make it fair. What we say is that the Japs can only cross into Russia if they get through China That way, the Japanese don’t have to make an unrealistic commitment to Russia, it’s more or less like the original Pacific rules without Russians. I know this dramatically changes the game, but it actually seems pretty fair.
-
RE: The Defense Of Britain
Well, If Japan pours that much money into its one factory, they are easy pickings for the US.
-
RE: The Defense Of Britain
I don’t mean to interrupt the thread, but I have to agree with Stalingradski. Barbarossa is a better strategy.
#1 It’s a more reliable strategy
#2 It’s far more fun to recreate the Eastern Front!
#3 If you do Sea-lion, you risk being set back on the Eastern FrontOn number three, don’t you realize that if you do a G4 sea-lion, Russia can take the three German border territories for a gain of 17 IPCs to use for more turtling later, I don’t care if you have 100 IPCs, you don’t have anyone on the front! And if Japan builds a Major IC in Korea, then the US knows it doesn’t need to pay that much attention to Japan, so America joins the Europe theater!