Keep it simple
Transports can carry 1 infantry and 1 non-infantry
or
Transports can carry 3 infantry
House rule it and see if that works
Kim
Keep it simple
Transports can carry 1 infantry and 1 non-infantry
or
Transports can carry 3 infantry
House rule it and see if that works
Kim
Grasshopper, I’m afraid Larry’s interest in doing anything further with this game has passed and that any play balance will have to come from the community.
That said, the bid is long accepted as the most agreed upon means, however to put some new life into that system for more strategic variability, how about inverse bidding? The bid is instead of ADDING units equal to the bid for the Allies, but is instead for that amount in units belonging to the Axis that will be REMOVED from the set up!
How much are you willing to give up as the Axis knowing that your opponent will be REMOVING that amount of units of yours of Their Choice?
A 20 point bid is now possibly 2 less Axis fighters, or a capital ship, or a couple tanks and a transport, the options are endless. The Axis may have to totally alter the Standard Opening’s and rethink their first turn attacks.
If the Axis advantage is material, then TAKING AWAY some of that advantage just might be much more effective than Allied bid additions, as well as taking away some of that early initiative with well calculated attacks.
What does Japan do with 4 less Infantry and 2 less Artillery do in China? How effective is Germany with 2 less Fighters to take on the UK navy? Italy could suffer a major disaster in Africa!
Think of the possibilities and then rethink what the bid might be. The options could really dictate some major strategic thought on both sides.
Kim
The Russians produced more tanks then the Americans (and certainly better tanks); twice as many artillery pieces, and twice as many soldiers as the US. Russian aircraft production exceeded Germany throughout the war (and Germany’s went UP every year through 1945). An extra income bid for the Russians makes far more sense than for the US.
Eliminate the pre-game unit bid for the Allies (effectively the UK) this allows the Russians get the income Bid each turn. With no extra units for the UK, Italy can make a fight for the Med and assist the Germans in Russia. The Eastern front is now a battle of uncertain outcome every game, and if Germany knocks out Russia, the extra income for the Allies is gone! (It never goes away for the US).
The original post is the right idea; it’s just for the wrong country. I gotta go along with Vance and Garg on this, and I think it makes for a better game all around.
Kim
I like Garg’s idea!
Eastern Front is the least historical part of A&A and it would be great to actually have the Russians have a shot of turning the tide of the Hun’s as they historically did. I
like this approach much better then US cash, UK extra units (it’s always them that gets it) and an actual chance for a Russian player to make a game of it instead of just trying to see how long they can go before getting crushed.
Thanks Garg.
Kim
How about making Sicily important!!
One of the major campaigns of the war is simply not a part of this game whatsoever. It should either be worth some IPCs or at least of value as an NO to the allies. Pretty ridiculeous that there is no reason to invade an island that was of historic importance.
same could be said for the Solomons too!
Kim
I’ve never seen it happen, but I guess it could be some kind of very high risk, high reward strategy. Taking Spain/Portugal will give you additional scrambling options.
Taking turkey will lead to Germany focusing on Med, africa and middle east while trying to contain Russia.I don’t think it is possible though, since Germany simply has not enough troops for that. And the allies will get free IPC too with South America, Arabia and so on.
I have done this before. Build a major industrial complex in Romania, attack Turkey turn 3 and drive for all the middle east and into India.
Caught my opponent completly by surprise and Germany (with Italian help) took out all of Africa and the Middle east then drove hard for Russia. Axis was making a small fortune that was tough to overcome.
In a long game, it probably won’t do as well.
Kim
I have a question as an observer. If Seth believes that in battles involving Subs vs destroyers should be rolled on the forum, how come no one does this on G1 when the Germans attack SZ111 and this very situation occurs?
I’m hoping to start playing on the forum so I just want to know what would be proper. Thanks
Kim
Part of the “skill” in Axis and Allies, is knowing when to Gamble.
How True!
Much like professional poker players who understands “pot odds”, the risk vs reward is much of what Axis and Allies is about!
Kim
We house ruled the Russian NOs to ONLY include territories within continental Europe and Scandanavia and Turkey. No African territories, No Iraq and No Islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Crete). However, they can get the NOs for territories that were originally Pro-Allied or Strict neutral IF the Axis occupied them first.
So, Disallowed are Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia, Tobruk, Libya, Iraq, Crete, Sicily and Sardinia.
Now Allowed are Sweeden, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal if they wrestle them from Germany or Italy. Plus of course all German and Italian original territories and Pro-Axis neutrals in Europe. We just thought the idea of Russian units in Africa or the Med was silly and ahistorical.
Much Better!
Kim
Jenn,
I like the thought process on the NO’s, though it might be too many for the Russians. Stalingrad for sure makes sense, maybe Lennigrad. I would definitely change the current 3+ IPC’s the Russians can get for taking places like Ethiopia! Heck the Russians getting an NO for Yugolavia makes more sense.
Just an extra +5 for Stalingrad alone each turn at war (with Germany) might be enough to eliminate bids for the Allies, which I would like.
Kim
even if 50+ brits are coming through sebastopol? and by then the french are also making a lot of IPC, from spain and such.
50+ Brits?? Never seen that many units on the board ever in the Mid-east. Not saying in your games that didn’t happen (unless your just talking theorectical), but if the UK sends NOTHING into France early on, then Germany and Austria can usually push on to Paris and if not capture it, severly weaken the Allies while increasing their IPC count enough to fight on two fronts.
We have found that the once the Turks and Austrians secure the Balkans, the Turks can either press into Egypt and or towards India. Britain can’t get enough troops into Egypt quick enough do to lack of transports in the Indian ocean and the Turks can push into Africa gaining vital IPC’s if things go well. Enough to pin down UK troops in India.
Don’t get me wrong, the CP has a tough road to victory in this game, but if the IPC count goes their way early on and Russia can be knocked out (revolution or capture) then the UK MUST send resources to France to assist (along with the US) or the French will get overwhelmed.
Have you tried the Tournament rules?
Kim
@Frontovik:
@urmomsmom7:
Russian Revolution happened.
the RR can be postponed indefinately by abandoning moscow
Not sure what kind of plan that would be? You abandon Moscow allowing the CP to capture it and the IPC’s? Then try to fight a guerrilla war with the remnents of the Russians? In a couple of our games the CP did capture Moscow straight on, and within a couple turns mopped up the remaining Russian resistance. the IPC swing from Russia to the CPs was decisive in going for Paris then.
Kim
@Frontovik:
how did ottomans take india? aren’t the british spending their entire income there?
In our games when the CP is doing well it’s not uncommon to have India fall.
Happened playing OOB rules, the 2-move rule, and the Tournament rules as well.
Once Russia is knocked out, the Turks have free hand to go all out vs Egypt/Africa and India. UK cannot defend the two fronts in the Middle East even with everthing going to India and the Turks start making enough IPC’s to get the edge.
Also, Austrian and/or Germans that have just knocked out Russia can be diverted towards India to help as well.
Kim
Russia: Improved Artillery?
Japan: No freakin clue. Maybe LRA? Not that they need MORE range on their planes!
Russian artillery was notoriously inferior to their western allies, it only was effective due to the massive numbers employed in massed barrages. Probably a better choice would be Improved Mech to represent Soviet Tankodesantniki.
Japan actually was the nation to develop “Super Subs”. Unfortunately the Japanese Super Subs didn’t work like the super subs in the game since they carried 3 aircraft and and were designed to surface launch planes to attack targets on land. They were the largest subs made prior to nuclear subs though.
Kim
@ll:
@urmomsmom7:
Do you guys think that it is vital for Germany to maintain naval dominance over the Allies?
It’s absolutely essential. Keeping the USA from crossing the Atlantic and making sure Britain stays homebound is key to Germany winning the West Front.
Good Luck with that plan. Germany will do better in the long run with the ground game. Time is money, and a heavy investment in a fleet will be a drain on the land war which must be used to gain an economic advantage first.
Kim
With the OOB the centrals never won one game. With the tournament rules it is about 50/50. And the only house rule we use is impassable Switzerland.Â
Played a lot with the Tournament Rules and no one even bothered to go there as you can get around it with the 2-moves quite easy. Its not worth slowing down the offensive with the CP. Just an observation from my group.
FYI, we have had the CP get wins with OOB rules, but its a grind and that was WITHOUT using the RR rules too! 2-move rule makes for a more dynamic game.
Kim
Maybe the answer is to simply reverse the order in which you roll for the research and development. At the start of your turn pick the chart you want, roll a die and see what technology breakthrough you will get if you invest.
IE, your scientists make you a proposal of what they intend to develop. Now once you know what you will get, you determine how many dice you want to roll to get that technology. If its something you don’t want or need, you don’t have to roll at all. If it’s something you really covet, then you can “invest” lots of dice into the roll to make the breakthrough more likely.
This does not change the overall chance to get anything, but no government would be wasting a large portion of its budget to have their scientist come up with Paratroopers, where as a proposal for Jets or Super Subs would likely see a considerable number of dice rolled.
If your scientist come to you with the idea for Rockets, now you have to decide will you put a lot into this development this turn (die roll)? if you do and still don’t get it you could bust your budget or if you pass (don’t pay for a die roll) next turn you will likely not have the opportunity again.
After all, you don’t go out and spend money on lottery tickets not knowing how much the jackpot is worth. With this method you will see more technology attempts since you will know what your going to get!
What U think?
Kim
Well, how about just putting an IPC value on each technology and allow it to be purchased?
Then put a random (die roll) time frame from the time of purchase to when you actually get the R&D complete. Things like paratroopers you could get much sooner then rockets or jets.
This way you can “invest” in what you want, but you may not get it right away.
Certain techs should be much more expensive then others, like 10 IPCs for Paratroopers and 30 IPcs for Rockets.
Kim
I like the idea, but if the axis is winning, virtually all development stops. I think that it shouldn’t be so dependent on what the other power is doing. If the allies hasn’t been winning, technology still would have developed.
If you look at the conditions I put forward for each technology, many of them become on going game balancers, though you are right that some (mostly for the Allies) require them to be winning.
UK can get radar early pretty easy and help hold London and India. US likely gets improved shipyards. Germany will get Jets and Rockets if its getting pressure from the US and UK.
Its not a perfect idea so I’m open to a different way, but I really don’t like the idea of it being chance to even get them, or chance as to what you get. I also don’t like the idea that EVERY power has equal chance to get any possible tech.
I mean really, should Italy be getting heavy bombers and jets? Rockets for the ANZACs? Improved mech infantry for Japan? I would prefer to have the powers that historically developed the technology (or at least were at the for-front) be getting it. I would rather it work like the National Objective bonus that only certain powers get the bonus for.
Just giving every power a free shot at it really puts to much luck into the game that some think has to much luck already.
Also, tying tech to IPC cost isn’t quit right either as in reality some of it was being produced when the historical power was LOSING the war (German rockets and jets).
I would be interested in any approach that is not luck based or money based.
Kim
One problem is that its not worth spending money for technology you may not get, or getting technology you do not need (i.e. Improved shipyards for Russia).
I do like the idea and the rules for technology though, so I thought it would be a good idea to award technology in a similar manner to National Objectives with the powers who historically gained such technology (for the most part) getting such technology based upon specific conditions.
How about this:
While both sides have victory goals and objectives of national importance granting bonus IPC�s, some powers will gain improved military technology through Research and Development. This will coincide with them having achieved specific conditions at the beginning of their turn. Technology will go to those powers that historically developed them to the fullest extent based upon conditions that represent a historical time frame for when they were actually developed.
Use the rules for these technologies from optional game rules. No IPCs are spent and no die rolls are made, if the conditions are met, the designated power gets the technology at the beginning of their turn.
United Kingdom
Advanced Artillery if 2 or more UK troops are in Normandy/Bordeaux.
Radar if the UK loses 2 or more air units in the German combat phase.
Paratroopers if 4 or more US units are in the United Kingdom (London)
Long Range Aircraft if the Allies control all of North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk and Egypt) and also Sicily.
Germany
Rockets if the US or UK control Normandy or Rome.
Jets if the UK or US control any original German territory or Normandy, Southern France or Northern Italy.
Increased Factory Production if any German Industrial complex has suffered damage or has been captured.
Improved Mechanized Infantry if there is at least one German tank in Libya or Tobruk.
Soviet Union
Increased Factory Production if any Industrial Complex is capture.
Italy
Improved Mechanized Infantry if there is at least one German tank in Libya or Tobruk.
Japan
Super Submarines if the Japanese do not control any Chinese or Russian territory (this included original Chinese territories that Japan controls at the start of the game such as Manchuria etc.)
United States
Paratroopers if 4 or more US units are in the United Kingdom (London)
Long Range Aircraft if the Allies control all of North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk and Egypt) and Sicily.
Improve Shipyards if the US loses a capital ship (Battleship or Aircraft Carrier) in the Japanese combat phase.
War Bonds if the US controls the Palau, Marshall and Caroline Islands.
Heavy Bombers if the US controls the Marianas and either Iwo Jima, Okinawa or Formosa.
The conditions correspond to the approximate time frame historically when these conditions occurred and the technologey went into use.
I think you wont need any bids with these as they favor the Allies. Please offer your opinions.
Kim