Topics created by the_jetset

You might find useful some of the information in the British section of my G40 map analysis:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0

Egypt, for example, was technically an independent country during WWII, though there was a lot of British influence.  It was also somewhat unstable; some members of King Farouk’s inner circle were a little too pro-Nazi for London’s taste, and in 1942 the British Army actually staged a mini-coup to get rid of them.

I agree that if the UK itself had been occupied the rest of the British Commonwealth’s self-governing Dominions, who in 1939 had declared war in their own names (rather than being automatically dragged in by Britian, as was the case in 1914), would have continued the fight on their own.  The British colonial territories are a more complicated case, with no clear answer.  India is particularly problematic to speculate about; if Britain’s homme territory had come under Nazi occupation, the independence movement in India would probably have been given quite a boost.  Even if India had, however, declared itself independent from the UK, this would hardly have translated into India surrendering to Japan, since that would have undercut the whole point of being independent in the first place.

Oh cool, we’re back! For a few days there I wasn’t able to get the site up.

I like the idea of a round 0 build up, but I think the implementation needs more work.

The first issue I’m anticipating is just sheer amount of time it would take to go around the table piece for piece. Beyond that you also have the issue of players matching each other (out in the open) by choosing to place all their TUV in just a few hot spots, at the expense of everywhere else. And finally, without any limits or caps for individual territories or sea zones you will likely see a ton of front line units, placed just outside the range of any opening attacks.

My suggestion would be to have more structure to the zero round, more rules defining where the units can be placed, or perhaps some kind of initiative role to determine the sequence in which they are placed.

One approach might be to just scale back the number of units or ipcs that are included in this process. So instead of taking all the starting TUV and putting that in a tray, you might just use a portion of the total, or perhaps instead allow players to add some smaller amount of TUV on top of the normal starting totals. Not only would that make things faster, it would also provide some much needed structure to the set up process.

Particularly with sea zones, instead of a race to be the first to occupy the contested ones (that border multiple originally controlled territories), you could restrict where naval units can be added to just those sea zones that already have a ship etc. Same deal with land.

You might make it a secret placement only revealed after everyone has recorded all their placements. Or you could break it down by unit type, first bases then inf then tanks then fighters then ships etc.

For ease of use, the more this zero round looked like a bid the easier it would be to implement. Although in this case it would be like a bid for all sides.

Again I like the idea a lot, I just think it needs more polish.

Have any of you ever modified some of the Sea Zones in the Pacific?  I am thinking about doing the following.  Would like comments and suggestions.

SZ6 - Japan:  Would be divided into two along the central “spine” of Japan.  Convoy Zone and Kamikaze marker would be repeated.  This would allow Japan to more safely mobilize sea units in the Sea of Japan between Korea and Mainland Japan.  This is basically the same divide that exists in the '42 2nd Edition version of A&A.

SZ’s 7 and 16:  Would be split in half with a North-South line.  This would prevent both Japan and US from directly attacking each other via Hawaii.  Instead, it would be necessary to launch (or hit) Midway or Aleutian Islands first.

SZ 30 - Johnson Island:  Would be split with an East-West line in the “lower part”.

**SZ 50 - Fiji:  **  Would be split an East-West line just below the island of Fiji.

Hi Marc.  I was hoping for your input on this.

What you are saying is very true.    This is why I’m proposing to simulate NB’s servicing ships/fleets with a “radius”.  The ships do not ever have to enter the actual sea-zone where the NB is located.

Therefore, if you have a chain of Naval Bases, your ships can stay at sea forever, as long as they stay within range of a base.  A range of 3 sea zones would be several thousand miles.

Ships would only need to actually go to a Naval Base to get repairs.

–—

The Japanese also had their ships out on very long missions.  Example being their carrier fleet around Java back in '41.  But they were able to do that with a very nice series of Bases leading all the way back to the mainland to service them.

Hello Zaibach,

Sorry for the late response.  Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system.  It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.

However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously.  It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.

We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.

Hello YG and Dafyd.  Yeah, I’ve never used R&D in G40 either.  I think I’ll look more into the Global War system.  But I’m worried that having to build the new units would create too many pieces as well.  ….  I’ve seen that some people use special colored chips to denote a specialized/modified unit.  Like for instance, an infantry with a black chip under it denotes “Marine” etc …

But I think that might be getting too complicated for the G40 experience.  Better to move on to a more detailed game like Global War instead.

Just wanted to see if anyone has a simple method that is also somewhat historically accurate.

Anyway, I don’t expect to do any additional changes for at least the next couple of games.  I want to play-test some of the house-rules I’ve integrated into my set from this board first.

Thanks YG.  Please keep the ideas coming.  I’m grabbing bits and pieces and mashing it together with some of my own ideas to make a nice set of rules that works out for my group too.

Wow Baron and Marc.  Both really good and simple ideas.  I think we will adopt one of those methods for breaking a deadlock instead of including the Russian player.  … But we’ve only had 8 players one time.

I wish I would have found this discussion board a long time ago.  Very cool ideas here.

Hello Kreuzfeld.

Thanks for the comments and interest.

Here’s what I’ve found in the 6 or 7 games we’ve played so far with this method.

@Aircraft Carriers: Actually, the games we have played so far did not have restrictions on what friendly nations planes could be on what aircraft carrier.  For instance, ANZAC could launch and recover combat move aircraft from a UK or USA carrier.  Carolina made this suggestion and we are going to incorporate it into our “Axis & Allies & Comintern” House Rules the next time we play in early May.  The reasons are the following:

Allies get a little too much of an advantage in the Pacific if they coordinate right.  ANZAC, being basically land-locked if Japan plays right and gets lucky, can just dedicate their IPC’s to pumping out Fighters and TAC’s …. This free’s USA up to just make CV’s and not worry so much about the planes.  …  Limiting CV’s to just being able to launch Combat Moves with their country’s plane balances this

It could also be argued that having carriers launch attacks with their own country’s planes is more historically accurate.  For sure, USA planes were used on UK carriers.  And I wouldn’t be surprised if USA crews even manned some of the planes (that is a TOTAL guess though).  However, most of the time crews trained long hours with the country and navy that they were going to be flying for.  Therefore, the CAG’s were of the same nation as the CV from which they were operating on.

@Casualties:  Any basically “random” method can be used, including all of the one’s you mentioned.  I gave one example and also left it open to other methods that different groups prefer.

@Analysis & Advantage  I fully agree with you.  The GREATEST advantage to this system is for the Allied and Russian players for sure.  In fact, I think it makes for basically balanced game.  The 6 or 7 games we have played so far have had both Axis and Allied/Russian wins.  ….  Here are some additional things we have noticed:

Like you mentioned, Italy/Germany Can Openers are eliminated on the Eastern Front, greatly helping the Russians.  This is SOMEWHAT mitigated by the new rule that doesn’t allow Allied Forces to step on Russian Controlled territories (and vice-versa) to reinforce Russia in the North … But the overall advantage definitely goes to Russia on this one

It is easier for Italy and Germany to combine forces and hold the Med via Gibraltar.  UK –> USA won’t be able to do Can Openers there.  This lets Italy dig into Africa a little bit more.

ANZAC doesn’t get side-showed as easy.  They can pump out subs, destroyers and maybe even the odd cruiser and incorporate them into the UK or USA fleets.  (historically accurate)

I could go on and on … but basically, “It’s a whole new way at looking at the day.”  😄