I noticed that strategic bombers and superfortresses only hit on the first combat round. Do they leave the battle after the first combat round or do they remain in the fight?
Posts made by knp7765
RE: Grasshopper & Gargantua's Deluxe Edition Discussion
RE: Global/Europe/Pacific 1939 for 1940 2nd Editon
In the opening strategy post you say Paris has a minor ic but the setup shows a major ic. Which is it?
RE: [Anniversary] Tanks Cost at 6
Infantry: 3 IPCs, 1 Attack, 3 Defense, 1 Move
Artillery: 4 IPCs, 1 Attack, 2 Defense, 1 Move, Boost up to 3 Infantry by +1 Attack each
Tank: 5 IPCs, 3 Attack, 3 Defense, 2 Move, Blitz
The idea here is that with enough supporting infantry, artillery are now much more cost-effective for offensive punch; you can get 4 punch for 4 IPCs, which is the best ratio available in the game…but only if you have enough cannon fodder. If you take casualties and you only have 1 infantry per artillery, then your artillery are no longer cost-effective, and may even perform worse than pure infantry, since they have weaker defense.
Shouldn’t the Artillery itself also attack at 2? It seems weird to me that it only attacks @ 1 but boosts infantry up to 2. However, the ability to boost up to 3 infantry is a big plus. I like that idea so you can have more infantry in the mix. It always irritates me a little to have a lot of infantry with a few artillery so I end up with a bunch of “1” attackers.
RE: Game Within A Game
I tried something like this when I first started playing Classic A&A back in the late 80s/early 90s. I enjoyed the game but after a while felt I wanted more. Basically, I thought it was silly that you would fight one battle for a territory like Eastern United States.
So, I started researching maps to further break down these territories. I got the US and Canada and a good part of Western Europe done. I made separate game boards for each larger territory.
Then I had to figure out how many of each unit (infantry, tank, fighter, bomber) represented the units on the global map. This was mostly done by a lot of guess work. I came up with the system that each infantry on the global map was 20 infantry on a smaller map. Each tank equaled 10 tanks and planes converted to 5 of each on the smaller maps.
I kept the same A&A combat style and values for the smaller maps and had to introduce a unit limit of 10 units per territory on the smaller map per side (planes did not count toward this limit).
This seemed to work well but took a long time just to capture a single territory on the global map. For example, the territory of Western Europe includes France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Holland. These (except for Luxembourg) were broken down further into smaller territories, similar to the D-Day or Fortress America maps.
Another problem that arose was my conversion system. Once you commit to a battle for a certain territory, whatever forces you have there are all you have. There are no reinforcements for that particular battle. So, once you captured a certain territory, how do you convert the units back to their global equivalents?
For example, say you attack with 1 bomber in the global map. That changes to 5 bombers on the smaller map. During the course of fighting for all the territories in the smaller map, say 2 or 3 of these bombers get destroyed. So, when you go back to the global map, how do you represent 2/5 of a bomber? Infantry and tanks were even harder to figure out due to their higher conversion rate.
So, I soon abandoned this project because it started taking the fun out of the game. I still think it’s an interesting idea, but you would need a dedicated room where you could leave everything out and set up to play this really long. After a while, I think a single game might take as long as the real war did.
RE: Please Read Before Opening your Anniversary Box 2017!
I must be lucky this time. I ordered 2 copies and both were nearly perfect.
What I don’t understand is why there are so many reports of damaged inner components while the outside box is undamaged. How does that happen? It sounds like these things are getting wrecked at the factory, placed in pristine outer boxes, then wrapped and shipped out. So why would someone do this?
RE: Please Read Before Opening your Anniversary Box 2017!
I ordered 2 copies and both of mine arrived in great condition. Some of the storage boxes had minor creases here and there but nothing I found objectionable.
From the bottom up, my games were packed with the game boards, the punch out sheets, the storage boxes then the rule book and IPCs.
RE: [1942.2] Increase Allied territory values instead of bid?
I just want to say this sounds like a terrific idea. With all the talk of bids to give the Allies extra units or cash to begin the game with, I never thought of changing the IPC value of certain territories.
For one thing, it gives the Allies a boost at the start but it is possible for the Axis to get these territories, which makes it more fair I think.
Also, like Argothair mentioned, it could make for more battles in what would be considered up to now odd territories.
I know you are still working on this, but I am curious to try it out myself.
RE: [Global 1940] New turn order
Excuse me if I missed a post, but with the changes that you are suggesting, it doesn’t sound like you are using Global 1940. It sounds more like HBG’s Global 1939.
1940 doesn’t have Dutch or fortresses. Vladivostok is not it’s own territory either. Also, you mentioned veteran units, light cruisers and carriers and battlecruisers. I know you mentioned adding new units, but I don’t think 1940 has room for this many changes.
Again, if I missed something I apologize, but this was confusing to me.
RE: Industrial complexes
Those Chinese territories in Japanese hands need to be changed if we ever see a third version of G40. Instead of being painted Japanese with Chinese markings, it should just be Chinese colors and then force the player to put Japanese icons on the territories it controls.
Whenever we play, during setup we always put Japanese control markers on those Chinese territories under Japanese occupation. That’s just part of setting the game up to us.
I agree those territories should be the same color as the rest of China.
RE: [Global 1940] New turn order
My idea is still better than all neutrals join the other side.
We often use a house rule for the strict neutrals where they are all divided into geographic blocks:
South America = all South American neutrals
Africa = all neutral countries in Africa
Europe = Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Sweden
Middle-East = Turkey, Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan
Mongolia = all Mongolian territories
We figured that made a little better sense because it’s like you said, why would Argentina or Afghanistan care what was happening in Sweden. However, Argentina might care more if Chile or Venezuela were invaded.
RE: Combined arms suggestion
Whilst I don’t support this concept as written, I am a strong supporter of cruisers and possibly battleships getting typical AAA capability.
Cruisers and battleships aren’t purchased often enough if ever, and giving them AAA capability, would ENCOURAGE thier purchase.
Aircraft carriers don’t need this ability, as they are already a standard purchas3 with powerful capabilities.
I lobbied for an AA ability for cruisers when people were discussing the worth of cruisers vs. their cost. This would give each ship class a certain ability and maybe make cruisers more worth the 12 IPC cost.
Submarines = surprise strike and convoy raiding
Destroyers = ability to cancel submarine abilities
Cruisers = anti-aircraft ability and shore bombardment
Battleships = 2 hits to sink and shore bombardment
Carriers = 2 hits to sink and carry planes
Any time a naval force that includes aircraft attacks an enemy naval force that includes cruiser(s), the cruiser(s) act like anti-aircraft guns and roll 1 die per attacking aircraft and hit @ 1 before regular combat round. Any hits are immediately destroyed.
Also, you could limit each cruiser like the AA guns on land to only 3 shots per cruiser.
RE: How to defend against Strategic Bombing?
Excuse me if I read your post wrong, but you mentioned buying AA guns but they couldn’t help you in SBRs. This is correct. However, your factories, airbases and naval bases have their own built-in AA defense. So after the dogfight round, you still get to roll one AA die for each bomber he sends to bomb your facilities. What’s more, those shots target ONLY the bombers, not the escorts. The escorts withdraw after the dogfight round. So if he is coming at you with 6 bombers, odds are good you should knock down at least one each time. That could get frustratingly expensive for Germany after a while, not to mention that one lucky roll where you get 3 or 4 ones.
That strategy of building fighters elsewhere and leaving your main factory maxed out can also be frustrating for Germany leaving those bombers sitting there doing nothing. I’ve experienced that as Germany. After 2 or 3 rounds of this, I finally flew some bombers to Russia and some to help Italy in the Med. Very next round UK fixed his factory and started producing.
I was so angry and scolded Goring for moving his bombers away, even though I ordered it in the first place. Hey, I’m the Fuhrer. I’m allowed to be unreasonable.
RE: THE DREADNOUGHT
I think Leatherneckinlv’s problem is with your term “Dreadnought”. When they came out before and during WW1, they were like you say, the most powerful warships on the sea. However, by WW2, the dreadnoughts were really outclassed by the more modern style of battleships being built (Bismarck, USS Iowa, USS North Carolina, HMS King George V, Yamato, etc.)
It sounds like you are coming up with the concept of the “Super Battleship” with the heavy firepower and 3 hits to sink. I like the idea because I have always been a fan of the battleship. (Sometimes in our games I will mess up my own strategies because I just have to get a battleship when I should get other units.)
I’m thinking some examples of this extra powerful battleship might be: Super Yamato for Japan, USS Montana for US, H-44 for Germany, Soviet Soyuz for Russia.
One thing that concerns me is that battleships were proven to be vulnerable to air attack. That’s how the Yamato and Musashi were sunk. Then there was the Prince of Wales and Repulse. Also, the Littorio class battleship “Roma” was sunk by the Luftwaffe when they tried to surrender to the Allies after Italy changed sides.
Perhaps this should be reflected in this new Super Battleship. Like if one was attacked by air only, the defense factor should go down by one. Defend @ 5 against enemy warships but @ 4 just enemy planes (and possibly subs). Just a thought.
Also, if they got 1 or 2 hits, would there be any lessening of their abilities?
RE: Seazone question
I personally think this rule is not right. Kamikaze should be able to target transports as well as surface warships. During the war, I realize that the Kamikaze focused exclusively on warships, especially carriers. In fact, it’s the same reason their submarine force did not have a good success rate because they wouldn’t attack merchant, supply or troop ships but concentrated on trying to hit warships.
However, if Plan Downfall, the invasion of Japan, had occurred, the leaders of the Kamikaze planned to attack the troop carrying ships in order to cause as many Allied casualties as possible.
For this reason, and the fact that the territory of Japan is the capital of Japan, I believe Kamikaze should be allowed to target transports. Perhaps just for sea zone 6.
I also just don’t like the idea of an invasion force made up of only the transports with no warships. Of course, I guess it could be argued that it is up to the Japanese player to keep fighters on Japan and keep the airbase in good repair and/or keep a few warships in that sea zone. But, as most of you know, once the Imperial Navy has been wiped out, it is kind of easy for the US player to bomb both the airbase and factory on Japan into non-existence and use subs to convoy raid Japan’s money away.
RE: [Global 1940] New turn order
In this new turn order, do the US and USSR still start out the game neutral?
Do they have to wait until turn 3 and turn 4 respectively before declaring war on the Axis (unless attacked first of course)?
Does Japan still get the NO of 10 IPCs for not invading French Indo-China, not being at war with the United States and not making an unprovoked declaration of war against the UK/ANZAC?
RE: [Global 1940] New turn order
Interesting idea. For one thing, I think this would allow Italy to rule the Med. There would be no Taranto raid, rather I could see Italy destroying all Allied ships and gaining the Med NO right away. They would probably get Egypt on their second turn. It would be cool to see Italy have more of a chance.
RE: PRO ITALIAN STRATEGY
I’ve seen Italy get very successful, but unfortunately it all depends on what the UK does. One thing I’ve noticed is even if UK does a Taranto and wipes out the Tobruk force, if Germany performs a successful Sealion and Britain is without income for a few rounds, Italy can really spread throughout Africa and the Middle East. It will take awhile because Italy makes so little money but once the UK units in the Med are killed, there is nothing to replace them.
One thing I have noticed is that it is a mistake for the UK not to take out the Italian fleet at Taranto. If they leave Italy with their battleship and 2 transports, Italy will be able to do too much in the Med and do it much quicker than normal. Especially if Sealion is successful.
One strategy is for the UK to forgo Taranto and rush the Med fleet back to England to try and prevent Sealion. If I’m playing Axis, I love to see this because you basically give Italy a free hand in the Med. Once that fleet leaves the Med, Italy can take Gibraltar and close the Med off.
Some like to take UK Pacific resources from Calcutta to the Med to keep Italy in check, which works but also leaves Calcutta pretty weak for Japan.
RE: Paris Failure
I don’t think it’s game over for the Axis if Germany fails to take Paris on round 1, but it will definitely make for a harder game for them. Also, let’s not forget that Germany could succeed in taking Paris but due to dice lose most of their units in the process. I’ve seen Germany take Paris with only 1 or 2 tanks left. That can be nearly as devastating as not taking Paris.
As far as Sealion goes, I think it is off the table if you don’t take Paris round 1. Instead of buying all those transports, you will have to replace all those land units that you lost in the first battle, plus you won’t have the 70 IPCs to do it with.
We had a game where Germany failed to take Paris round 1 and round 2 and Italy failed on it’s first try, but got it on the second round. This was a total suck fest for the Axis because they were also trying the “Operation Cloverfield”, where you fake a Sealion, jump down to Gibraltar after Italy captures it and try invading the Eastern US. Without the Paris money, Germany didn’t have enough transports/land units and failed to take Washington.
So, Berlin was raped by the Red horde, UK went down and took Rome, which lasted longer than Berlin, and the US was able to go hog wild in the Pacific. Once they successfully defended their capital, I don’t think there was a single US piece on the Europe board. Poor Japan was just trounced.