Messages

1276

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Minor Allies/Commonwealth Build Limits

« on: July 24, 2006, 03:25:04 PM »

You are not forced to place an infantry in the neutral - but if Germany wants to build 9 infantry, for example, one of them needs to be placed in one of their minor neutrals as Germany's max builds without their allies is only 8 infantry.

Only one infantry unit may be placed in each minor neutral per turn.  So, if the Germans build three infantry one turn, they could place one in Hungary, one in Romania and one in Germany - but no more than one in each of their minor neutrals per turn. (Alternatively, they could place all three in Germany and none in Romania and Hungary).  All the minor Allies do for you is increase your maximum infantry builds by one - as long as the additional infantry build is placed in the minor.

Is that clear?
I'll make the rules regarding minor infantry builds more clear as well - thanks for pointing out these confusing spots.

1277

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Soviet/Western Allies Naval Cooperation

« on: July 24, 2006, 03:18:13 PM »

Wow - questions coming faster than I can answer them.  This one is in the rules - in the "Nationalities Sharing the Same Turn" in the Turn Sequence section:

The Soviet Union may not occupy the same land territory and may not attack the same territory or sea zone in conjunction with the rest of the Allies. . .
Naval units of different nationalities may occupy the same sea zone and defend together.

So - Soviet naval units may occupy and defend the same sea zone as their Western Allies - but may not attack together.

1278

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Units

« on: July 24, 2006, 02:50:51 PM »

Right - you are correct. If it is on the production chart it is finished as that type of unit, it does not change into the more modern type of unit halfway through being built.

Therefore, if Italy has an early war (bi-plane) fighter on their production chart, it needs to be completed as a biplane fighter before the Italians have the manufacturing capacity to start building late war fighters.

How did Friday's game go?
Good luck at WBC next week!

1279

After action reports from first edition / Re: Origins 2006

« on: July 21, 2006, 10:32:28 AM »

Another shot submitted from Origins!

The Allies have cleared North Africa and invaded Sicily!  Operation Husky a couple turns early!  While the Western Allies were doing great in this game, the Russian front was a disaster and eventually cost the Allies the game in the end. ..



[attachment deleted by admin]

1280

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Units

« on: July 21, 2006, 04:07:41 AM »

Yoper,

good to hear from you - here's some answers to your questions below - and I will clarify in the rulebook (and add it to other rough spots you have identified)

"The question here is:  Does the early version of an unit that is on the map when the time frame is reached remain on the board?  Does it stay on the board in its present form or does it upgrade?

My personal interpretation is that it stays on the board as is."
It remains on the board as is - only the factories are upgraded - for example, the light tanks stay on the board for Italy but Italian factories begin churning out medium tanks in Spring of 42.

"2) Related to that is the question concerning other country charts that only talk about when certain new units are available and don't talk about other units being superseded by these new units.

I take it that is this case, the new units are in addition to the old units?"
Yes

"I would say that if it doesn't specifically talk about these units no longer being able to be built that they still could be built by the player."
Correct

"3) The UK early naval fighter- I take it that the only kind of fighter that can be on a UK carrier before the specific date on the UK country chart is the UK early naval fighter?  After that date a normal UK fighter can land on a UK carrier?"
Correct - you can still continue to have your early war fighters on your carriers - but regular fighters can land on Brit carriers after Spring 42.

"Can the UK early naval fighter "land" in a land territory or must it always operate from a carrier?"
Nothing prevents them from landing on land - they can land on either carriers or land.

Hope this helps - good luck tonight!

1281

After action reports from first edition / Re: Detroit/southeast Michigan area

« on: July 19, 2006, 07:03:54 AM »

So Yoper - did you get a chance to try things out on Friday?

1282

Strategy Tips / Re: D-Day invasions (long)

« on: July 19, 2006, 07:00:39 AM »

I think it is important to keep at least a moderate defense of France from 1942 onwards.  Enough to deter or elliminate say anything less than a 6 transport invasion.

Deterence is key - once the Allies are on shore, you can kiss progress in Russia good bye.

In too many games, the Germans under-defend France once they have taken it.  The 3 Vicotry Points in Paris are worth a lot more than a bunch of Russian territory and become critical if the Germans are trying to win the game in 43 or 44.

Mark

1283

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Q & A

« on: July 18, 2006, 04:41:58 AM »

OK - clarified:
If the mech unit moves by transport (either tactically or strategically) during the regular movement phase, it can not mech attack during the mechanized phase (it may mech friendly, however).

Thanks,
Mark

1284

WWII discussion forum / Re: Greatest Axis Blunder

« on: July 16, 2006, 06:50:03 AM »

The biggest blunder was starting Barbarossa while still fighting the U.K.
Nobody wins 2 front wars.

except for the U.S. of course     

1285

WWII discussion forum / Re: pacific blunder

« on: July 16, 2006, 06:48:41 AM »

It probably would have been benefiial for the Japanese to go after the shipyards and oil infrastrucutre in a third wave have to agree.

I mean, I guess one could argue Pearl Harbor itself was the biggest Japanese blunder in the Pacific - but, for arguments sake - lets assume Pearl Harbor is a done deal  - what were the biggest mistakes after that?

I gotta think not protecting and exploiting the resources they were able to obtain in 41 had to contribute - Japan did not get much of the oil out of the East Indies - one of the drivers for them to go to war in the first place.

Horrible inter-service cooperation between the army and navy - no single leadership and war direction.

What else?

1286

WWII discussion forum / Re: How Hitler could have won WWII?

« on: July 16, 2006, 06:42:53 AM »

Germany was not outproducing Russia in tanks and planes in 1944. . .

I know there are varying statistics on production figures in WW2, but in Collin's Atlas of WWII and in Keegan's book on WWII, they have the following numbers:
German 1942 Armor production at 9,300 and in 1944 it was at 27,300
Soviet production in 1942 was 24,000 (rising to 29,000 in 1943 and dropping to 20,500 in 1944).  The Western Allies also chewed up the bulk of the German airforce.  I'm just saying, with no Western front in French North Africa, Italy, France and in the skies over Germany - it may have been possible for the Eastern Front to have been fought to a point of stalemate.

1287

Game Design / Re: The problem of Italy

« on: July 14, 2006, 04:25:57 AM »

I think the observation about Italy was a little premature - I think the Italian mainland has been invaded and Italy has fallen in 4 out of the last 6 games I have been involved in/witnessed/heard about.  Do you still hold this position?

Mark

1288

After action reports from first edition / Re: Detroit/southeast Michigan area

« on: July 14, 2006, 03:58:07 AM »

yeah - subs are hard to hunt and kill. . .

Instead of introducing complex or time consuming seperate find and attack rolls, we decided this was a better way to model it (since, almost opposite to surface engagements, destroyers are your best sub hunters and battleships are pretty much ineffective).

Things don't hunt and attack subs as effective as they defend convoy zones from subs (destroyers attack subs on a "1" but defend zones against sub attacks on a "2 or less")  I think this is an important characteristic to model.  Early in the war, when Churchill was Lord of the Admiralty, he advocated chasing subs all over the Atlantic like cavalry rather than escort duty - to disastrous results.  destroyers were busy trying to find subs to kill while convoys were getting sunk at an alarming rate - it did not take long for the British to change tactics.

The game tries to reflect these strategies:  when you don't have a lot of destroyers and planes - you are better off defending your convoy zones.  Eventually, if you have lots of destroyers and planes, it might make sense to form hunter killer groups as well and chase the subs down.

anyway - my 2 cents - others have different strategies in dealing with subs. . .

1289

General Discussion / Re: Welcome to WWII: The Struggle for Europe and Asia

« on: July 13, 2006, 11:09:42 AM »

We had a great time at Origins and looking forward to GenCon this Summer - thanks to everyone who played and for your support!

1290

After action reports from first edition / Re: Detroit/southeast Michigan area

« on: July 13, 2006, 11:05:12 AM »

Yoper - good luck tomorrow night!

Remember:
Amphibs (except for the Japanese) and para drops cost $
There are certan garrison requirements that countries must maintain until they are at war.
Air to air combat proceeds every round of naval or ground combat.
Planes can only be killed by AA or other planes.
You must garrison captured territories to get money from them.

Those are the most common mistakes folks forget about their first time playing.
Feel free to post or email any questions that come up