In my most recent game, London fell G2, France fell I3 (GB reinforced Paris instead of preparing for the incoming Sealion). The Axis won. But that was more a result of the USA playing poorly than a result of London falling so early.
I think that if G1 attempt on Paris fails, people should at least play out the rest of the round. Depending on how much damage the Germans do, Italy has a fair chance at taking Paris before France can build any units.
I’ve seen Paris survive the German attack twice. The Axis tried to weaken Paris on G1 so that Italy could have it I1. The thought was that Italy needs the 19 IPC to boost their start more than the Germans do.
That’s why I was wondering about GB sending its planes. Italy would have a tough time knocking out that air force, and France gets to buy 6 new infantry to stand ready for round 2 (for which Germany didn’t buy any ground units as it was planning on a G2 or G3 Sealion).
My thought is that the Axis is going to take both capitals in the first 3 rounds no matter what. So which capital has the greater potential to be a nuisance?
If Germany looks to be preparing for Sealion and fails to take Paris on the first turn, should England hunker down defenses in London, or dedicate units to holding Paris (this is most especially important concerning all the British fighters).
I read a very good suggestion for an Axis strategy.
Germany should do a successful Sea Lion. Italy should leave Gibraltar in UK hands and bomb the facilities. This makes it impossible for the allies to use the navel yard until UK has been liberated as only the UK can repair their facilities.
If Italy took Gibraltar, then the USA could easily recapture it and use the navel yard the rest of the game.
I saw the US build minor ICs in Iraq and Persia in order to liberate Russia. It worked really well. The US can actually land there in 4 turns if it goes South of Africa…assuming England still owns Gibralter.
Some of you guys are saying to ignore Russia if he turtles. If you lay off, he takes one turn to buy tanks instead of infanty, and suddenly he has a grand army with hordes of canonfodder only two turns away from liberating Stalingrad. That brings ya back down to six victory cities (assuming you control all of Western Europe and Egypt). Can you really hold Stalingrad and Lenningrad while putting enough money into taking either London or Washington?
One thing I like about this idea is that it brings South America into the action. As big a board as A&A Global is, it can be easy to have too many powers in too small a space.
This looks very well thought out. Keeping the game balanced was clearly a major point for you.
Are there any new Industrial Complexes, Air Bases, Navel Bases, or AA Guns?
Here’s the basic concept: different nations receive new techs if/when certain historical events occur in the game.
An example would be that the US gains long-range bombers after Japan takes the seazone around Hawaii.
Perhaps Russia develops snipers (1 out of 3 infantry defends with a 3 or less) when Lenningrad is taken.
This is similar to Japan, in a sense, gaining the “tech” of kamakazi if the allies get too close to Japan’s homeland. Unfortunately I do not know enough details about WWII to come up with too many other specific ideas. And it would be good if some of these tech advances were triggered by victories (a succesful D-Day allows X, pushing so far into Russia allows Germany X) instead of only losses like my suggestions above.
Any ideas for other tech advances and their historical triggers?
If Germany gives you room to breath, send a couple tanks and some mech infantry toward India to prepare for a counter attack when Japan takes the capital.
Sorry to drag out a pretty well covered topic, but I thought of a few more situations to be clear on.
If Alaska, Western US, or Mexico came under UK control, which economy would collect the income? They are on the Pacific map, but they are so near to Canada that I expect London takes control. Hawaii should be clarified too as it is a little more ambiguous.
Also, can the London economy build an industrial complex, airbase, or navel base on a UK territory (whether original or captured) on the Pacific map? If yes (though I don’t expect a yes), which economy can produce units there? This, of course, could be reversed to ask: can the India economy build facilities on the Europe side of the map?
India can never receive income from UK territories on the Europe map or use their industrial complexes, and London can never receive income from UK territories on the Pacific map or use their industrial complexes. It is not an issue of control, as all UK territories are controlled by UK, not its individual economies. It is an issue of splitting income and production between the two UK economies, and this never changes.
If South Africa is taken (liberated) by UK forces (UK being one power, there is no such thing as “UK Europe units” or “UK Pacific units”), control of the territory is returned to UK. The territory’s income and production continue to be utilized by the London economy. If London is Axis-held, that income and production capacity are used by no one.
If South Africa is taken (captured) by another Allied power (including ANZAC) while London is Axis-held, that power temporarily takes control the territory, gaining its income and production capacity. The difference between these two cases is liberation by the original power (UK) versus capture by another Allied power.
It is the same situation that would exist if Leningrad were recaptured by the Allies while Moscow is in Axis hands. If USSR does the recapturing, it cannot collect the income or use the IC, but if another Allied power does the recapturing it can collect the income and use the IC. The only difference is that UK’s territories’ administration is divided between two capitals.
Thanks for the clear answer. I imagine the rules were written this way more for the sake of gameplay than for a sense of realism.
The total amount taken from convoy raids is equal to the territory amount…so the UK is 6 and Scotland is 2 so the total amount that they would not be able to collect would be 8 and it wouldnt matter if there were twenty subs in the convoy raid.
That’s if the disruption occurs in SZ 109. However, if disruption occurs in both SZ 109 AND SZ 119, the UK can lose up to 8 from SZ109 AND another 2 from SZ 119. Double dipping CAN occur, but only in seperate seazones hitting a single territory. They would never return saved money, as that’s already in the bank, but they would not collect anything each round if their income was 10 ipcs or less.
For example (using Alpha 2 objectives) and assuming that the UK has lost control of all canadian, african and middle east territories and is reduced to ONLY the UK and Scotland:
if Germany had max disruption on SZ 109 and 119 using only surface fleet units and had no submarines anywhere except 100, 113, 115, or 116, the the UK income would be 6 for UK, 2 for scotland, plus 5 for the national objective, but would collect only 3 IPCs because both convoy zones are hit for their full amount.
Source:
@Krieghund:UK can lose only 2 IPCs from sea zone 119, as it only touches Scotland. It can lose 8 IPCs from sea zone 109, as it touches both Scotland and United Kingdom.
4 subs in sea zone 119 and 1 sub in sea zone 109 will result in a reduction in income of 4 IPCs for UK. However, 4 subs in sea zone 109 and 1 sub in sea zone 119 would result in a reduction in income of 10 IPCs. In any case, income may not be reduced below zero.
Thanks very much. That is a very thorough answer.
Is there any time that India can build units out of the South African industrial complex?
Suppose London has fallen and Africa is captured. If India liberates South Africa, can they use the comlex?
What if ANZAC liberates South Africa? Can they use the complex? Do the 2 IPCs go to ANZAC or to India as it is a British territory?
These questions go for the Canadian industrial complex too, even though that is far less likely a scenario.
All of Italy’s income is susceptible to convoy disruption.
I’ve got a question too.
During the collect income phase, it is possible to have lose money due to convoy raids creating a net loss?
For instance, if London’s income comes from only United Kingdom and Scottland [income = 8], and there are four subs in sz 109 and a sub in sz 119 [convoy raid = -10], does London have to give up 2 IPCs that it had saved from the previous turn?
Back to the point of the original post, I tend to agree, Japan has limited options. Personally, I’d like to see the US unable to declare war until turn four and Japan able to invade the DEI, however, if they do this the US can then declare war on Turn 3.
What if the US were to declare war if/when Japan reaches a certain level of income? This could be a simple rule that holds true no matter what Japan’s strategy is. It gives Japan the flexibility to go all out against Russia, take the DEI, or whatever else without bringing in the US too early. And it even keeps with the tone of the US only declaring war on Japan if Japan’s emperialism gets too out of hand.
There are a few problems that I see off the bat. Does this give Japan the ability to take India without the US entering the war? What happens if India, ANZAC, China, and Russia fight well enough against Japan to keep it from reaching this certain level of income? How will we determine if the US can enter the European theatre?
I am very attracted to a simple rule to make this aspect of the game clearer and easier, but am not sure how simple the rule can be and still be adequete.