Messages

181

Rules questions from first edition / Re: New units/rules ideas

« on: September 20, 2007, 04:20:59 AM »

You may not have understood my earlier points.

I agree that air should be able to respond to an empty sz that has ships making an amphibious assault.

Craig,

You’re right; I did misunderstand.

What I was against was allowing air units to respond to empty sz that had naval units just moving through them.

Example: I don't think that fighters in any coastal territory/island should be able to respond out and screw with passing ships. 

I was originally for this, but could see where this might cause some problems. I think the proposed rules that someone (Mark?) posted that suggest allowing aircraft to block supply into or through adjacent sea zones unless the sea zone in question is occupied by an enemy combat ship works pretty well, since it does simulate the problems of running supply lines through enemy-controlled or contested sea areas.

Also, on the point about fighters responding to adjacent empty territories- another way to look at it is the fact that in any battle in which the defender loses all his ground units, but still has air units, what happens?

The battle is over and the air units must relocate.  This happens because there are no longer any ground units to support.  That is what happens with the scenario that we are talk about, but the battle can't even start since there are no ground units to support.

No problem – you’ve convinced me. I see now I was misinterpreting the rules on this.

OK - I agree in theory that planes should be able to react against enemy fleets that end their movement adjacent to them (is that the suggestion - or just fleets conducting amphibious invasions?)

Mark,

I think an actual invasion should be required for aircraft to react to the sea zone. I don’t see the need to allow a reaction by Player A every time one of Player B’s fleets ends its movement adjacent to an area containing aircraft. After all, if Player B’s fleet ends its move there without invading, Player A will have the opportunity to attack that fleet during his turn.

The only problem I have is how the attacker uses his planes.  Does he have to allocate planes to defend his fleet as well as to support the ground attack?  Since the attacker has to move his planes first and then the defender gets to choose where to put his planes - this gives the defender a bit of an advantage.

I think the only way to use a rule like this is to also play with the "airbase attack" rules and allow the attacker to attack and pin any enemy air units adjacent to the coast he wants to invade.

The other way this could work would be that when making an amphibious invasion, the attacker simply announces his intent to make an invasion. The defender then has to allocate his planes first, then the attacker does the same. Otherwise, as you point out you’re giving the defender an advantage, and I think the attacker should have the initiative. This would be an exception to the normal flow of the rules, but I don’t think it’s complicated.

Personally, though, I prefer the using airbase rules anyway, as I think that’s more realistic. And I rather like the idea of the attacker being forced to decide whether to hold some aircraft back as CAP since that’s exactly the decision the carrier admirals faced in the war. Of course, I think the attacker should also be allowed to attack the airbase, as you said. I’ve made the point that in real life the defender would send aircraft out to attack an invading fleet – but then the attacker would also launch a carrier strike against the airfields as soon as he was in range. Allowing one of these without the other gives too much advantage either way in my opinion.

Maybe the way to address the whole thing is to make reaction by aircraft to an empty sea zone a part of the airbases rule. This gives the attacker and defender both more flexibility, and I think it also bumps the realism up a notch for little additional complexity. The defender gets to go after the fleet – but the attacker gets to hit the airbase first and possibly prevent such a reaction. I like it.

182

Rules questions from first edition / Re: The return of France

« on: September 19, 2007, 08:38:13 AM »

Mark,

I was just curious - how did these optional rules for Frech re-entry work out?

183

Rules questions from first edition / Re: New units/rules ideas

« on: September 19, 2007, 04:57:14 AM »

We actually talked Mark into adding the rule concerning fighters being able to respond to the paratrooper in an adjacent territory that did not have any ground units in it.  We reasoned that fighters are able to respond to a strategic bombing attack in an adjacent territory, why not an bomber making a paradrop?  It can't respond to the actually ground battle since there are no ground units to support, but it should be able to attempt to destroy the bomber.

This is also why you can't respond to any attack on a land territory that is adjacent to your fighter, but doesn't have a land unit defending it.  There is no land unit for the fighter to support, so there is no way the fighter can respond to the attack!

The air against naval units in the sea zones should be similar in that the could only attack the ships if they are part of an amphibious assault. 

Air units shouldn't have the power to interdict movement in sea zones adjacent to the territory they are in.  That would be too powerful.

Craig

I agree that in real life a fighter or bomber alone couldn’t defeat a ground attack (although this actually did happen in the First Arab-Israeli War). The way I read the rules, though, this is possible. The aircraft would only hit on ones, since they’d be unsupported, but they could still hit. As I’m writing this I recall that the rules do say that aircraft alone can’t defend a territory that’s attacked, so I think the intent is that planes can’t react to an empty territory (other than fight air-to-air against a paradrop), but the wording could be made more clear. I do now see that we shouldn’t allow reactions to empty land territories.

I have to disagree about not letting aircraft react to empty sea zones, though. I agree that it would make aircraft very powerful in defending an adjacent sea zone – but that’s the way it should be. Whether or not aircraft defending a coastal territory would be too powerful shouldn’t be a consideration unless they tried this in playtest and it created a MAJOR issue.

Look at the proposed Operation Sea Lion. There were three major reasons why it never happened – lack of transport, inability to neutralize the Royal Navy – and the fact that the Germans never achieved air superiority over the English Channel. If Germany had somehow managed to accomplish the first two points, they still would have had to neutralize the RAF or they would have had British planes swarming all over their transports coming in.

Also, consider this. We don’t allow aircraft to react to an empty sea zone, but if we happen to have a single destroyer in the sea zone that the invader wants to come into to launch the invasion, suddenly that makes the whole thing different and the defender can react? In real life, whether we have a ship there or not is irrelevant – if we detect an amphibious invasion coming in we’re going to fly out and attack the enemy fleet. From a practical standpoint there isn’t any real difference in reacting to an empty sea zone versus one that has, say, a single ship; this is just an arbitrary decision in the rules.

Interdiction of empty sea zones by aircraft should be allowed because this is exactly what aircraft did do. Not allowing this is in my view a hole in the rules. One of the things that makes the game so appealing is that it is quite realistic considering the complexity level. I think this should be changed in the interest of realism.

Bob

184

Rules questions from first edition / Re: New units/rules ideas

« on: September 19, 2007, 02:53:37 AM »

Sea Zone Attack-  Dan from my group really complained about the inability to react to an invasion force in an adjacent sea zone.

This one really bugs me too because it just isn’t realistic. In real life a territory under attack wouldn’t wait until the enemy was ashore and then fly against any aircraft that were supporting the invasion; they’d try to hit the invasion force before they came ashore and inflict as much damage as they could.

I do wonder whether there may possibly be a reason for this that came up in playtesting. I do know that a rule like this would make amphibious operations potentially more difficult. In games I’ve played recently I’ve invaded England several times because my opponent tends to over-build aircraft for England. Allowing air to intercept empty sea zones would make this difficult since he could have savaged my invasion forces.

As an aside (to answer a comment of Bob's), if I remember correctly, fighters can only respond to adjacent land battle if a defending land unit is in the territory in question.  It can respond to a strategic attack or a paradrop in an adjacent territory though, even if no land unit is there.  The fighter doesn't fight against the paratrooper after if hits the ground, it attacks the plane in the air before the paradrop.

The rules aren’t really clear. On page 17, the second paragraph reads, “Note: A territory is considered to be under attack when enemy units end their movement in a territory that was friendly owned at the beginning of the movement phase (i.e. they may be unoccupied by friendly units – just friendly controlled)” (emphasis added).

It goes on to give examples, and then differentiates between a sea zone and a land territory. We’ve interpreted the wording here to mean that aircraft can fly defensive air support against a land territory that does not contain friendly land units sine the land territory is specifically defined as being under attack. Even if we’re wrong, it’s still inconsistent, since aircraft can react to paradrop missions over an empty territory but not to an attack into an empty sea zone. This seems to be either a hole in the rules or, as I said, maybe something came up during playtesting that caused the rules to work this way.

The naval air unit is part of a better solution to the air combat problem in the Pacific. 

I agree. I’m thinking back years ago to when I played World in Flames and they had specific naval air units. You had to decide when you were building units just what missions you expected to have to fly and build accordingly. Fighters in this game have sort of become an all-purpose unit that does several things fairly well. I’d like to see them placed into more of a specific air superiority role and have a separate air unit for naval air. I also think it’s the best solution for resolving the issue of air groups on carriers. I’m definitely opposed to having to split air groups 50-50 in combats.

I really like the air base AA idea!  But since the clear territories (and other territories that have a production center) are assumed to be able to have unlimited air stacking capability, are we going to give those map spaces the same kind of intrinsic AA fire?

This is something that I frankly hadn’t thought of  . I was thinking more of bases constructed on Pacific islands, but you certainly make a good point. I think allowing intrinsic AA for all territories would be unbalancing; plus, it would pretty much make AA guns pointless. Why build AA guns when you already have intrinsic AA?

One possible way to look at this is that airbases on islands are on relatively small land areas, and so any intrinsic AA would be concentrated into a fairly small area. In desert and forest territories on the European map, the areas are larger, but the airbases themselves are again fairly compact, since they have to be constructed in specific places in areas that are otherwise unusable as opposed to clear territories where you can pretty much have an airbase anywhere that you have flat ground. AA at these airbases would be more concentrated as opposed to clear areas where you’d have to be more spread out to protect other assets. OK, I know that’s a stretch, but it’s the best I can do. I like this idea, but you make a good point, and so it might not be a good idea.

I had also toyed with the idea of a light anti-tank gun for the Japanese. It would have cost 3, with a 2/2 attack/defense value. Japan built 37mm and 47mm guns before and during the war, but never did build heavier guns, such as the US 3-inch, British 17-Pounder, or German 88, so I thought giving them a regular AT gun wasn’t warranted. But when you look at the Pacific and where Japan is going to be fighting, there really isn’t anyplace they’d be fighting where they wouldn’t be better served by building an infantry instead, so I think it would wind up being a fairly useless piece.

185

Rules questions from first edition / New units/rules ideas

« on: September 17, 2007, 03:05:55 AM »

I’ve been thinking about optional rules and additional units ever since getting the game a couple of years ago. After getting in quite a few games in the last several months, and organizing my thoughts, here’s what I’ve come up with as ideas. Some of them are completely my own; others are ideas that I had and combined them with things I’ve read here on the boards. I’m in no way trying to steal anyone’s ideas; I’m just trying to contribute to the dialog to make this game even better. As always, everyone’s thoughts, comments, suggestions, threats, etc. are welcome. At any rate, for better or worse, here’s what I’ve come up with.

UNITS

NAVAL AIR
Air to Air 2
Ground Attack 2
Ship Attack 3
Cost 4/4
Counts as fighter for production limits

Comment: Fighters are currently too effective against ships, considering that only some of the planes in a group would be carrying ordinance; the rest would truly be fighters with a mission of air superiority. Conversely, fighters on CV’s are too effective at air-to-air, since some of the planes carried by CV’s would be torpedo and dive bombers, and thus not effective at air-to-air. Several people have also commented on the lack of realism in naval combats when one or both players will designate all of their aircraft as either bombers or fighters, when in reality about half of a CV’s air group would be of each type. I always liked the dedicated Naval Air units in World in Flames, and wanted to bring something like that into the game. Several people have already suggested this type of unit in one form or another; this is my take on the subject. What I especially like about this unit is that creating a new unit for naval air introduces more decision making into builds, as players must consider which role a plane will be used for when deciding to build a fighter or naval air. When using this unit the anti-ship value of fighters should be reduced to 2, or even 1. Another idea would be to say that fighters have 2 against DD’s, subs, and transports; 1 against anything else.

Optional – Allow players to choose which to place on a carrier. For example, a player could put 1 each naval air and a fighter on a fleet carrier. This allows for mission-specific deployments.

GERMAN EARLY FIGHTERS
Air to Air 2
Ground Attack 3
Ship Attack 2
Range 3
Cost 4/4
Counts as fighter for production limits

Comment: When the war began, Germany was convinced that long-range two-engine “fighter destroyers” would be effective in bomber escort missions, and also be able to hold their own against single-engine interceptors. Experience proved otherwise, of course, but Me 110’s continued in front-line service as fighters into 1941. They did prove to be effective as ground-attack aircraft however, as well as night fighters.

Replace one of the fighters in the initial setup with a Me 110, and require that Germany must build one Me 110 for every 2 regular fighters (since Germany will start the war with 4 regular fighters and one Me 110, this means that the first fighter that Germany builds must be a Me 110). Germany must continue to build 1 Me 110 for every two regular fighters until they have lost two Me 110’s in air-to-air combat or until the winter 1940-41 game turn. Range for the Me 110 is 3 because these planes had considerably longer range than contemporary single-engine fighters. Me 110’s cannot be based on a aircraft carrier. For play balance purposes, since this will somewhat reduce the effectiveness of the German air force, I would suggest allowing Germany to begin the game with a Me 110 already in the 1 box of the production chart.

If using the Night Bombing rules (below), the Me 110 is considered to be a Night Fighter.

BRITISH NIGHT FIGHTER (if using Night Bombing rules)
Air-to-Air 2
Ground Attack 1
Ship Attack 1
Cost 4/4
Production limit 1

Comment: This unit represents planes (such as the Mosquito) specifically designed to defend against night bombing raids (see optional rule below).

ASSAULT GUNS (Germany & Soviet Union)
Attack 3
Defense 3
Cost 3/3
Production limit 2

Comment: Both Germany & the Soviet Union placed large guns on tank chassis for the specific purpose of assaulting fixed positions; they could also be used as regular artillery. These units may target fortifications (only) ala Stukas/Sturmoviks and one hit from an assault gun destroys a fortification unit, or they may be used as conventional artillery.

JAPANESE HYUGA/ISE HYBRID AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
Attack vs. Ships 3
Defense 3
2 hits to sink
Cost 5/5
Can carry one naval air (this unit has combat values of 2 for all combats due to small size of air group) or one Kamikaze.
Can only convert one BB to this unit

Comment: After the debacle at Midway, Japan frantically looked for ways to quickly get more aircraft carriers into action. One method was to convert the battleships Hyuga and Ise to hybrid CV’s. This was done by removing the aft main turret and installing a flight deck over the after part of the ship.

After the Japanese lose two fleet carriers, they may at any time convert a regular BB to a hybrid. To do this, pay 5 points and place a BB that begins the production phase in a sea zone adjacent to a production territory on the 1 box of the production chart. The conversion can be completed the next turn at an additional cost of 5 (total cost 10 for the conversion).

This unit will not be that effective; it’s really just an excuse to get a “fun” unit into the game (ala the Yamato).

US MECHANIZED INFANTRY
Attack 2
Defense 2
Cost 2/2
Production limit 2

Comment: Basically a copy of German Panzer Grenadiers. The US deployed mechanized infantry using halftracks for transport that were very heavily armed with machine guns, light and heavy mortars, and light artillery (in addition to the weapons carried by the halftracks themselves). As such, these units packed quite a punch, though their tactics weren’t as developed as those used by German Panzer Grenadiers. The US may deploy these units on a one-for-one basis with infantry (these units did not operate independently, but alongside regular infantry). They may move & attack in the Mechanized Phase and must take an infantry with them on a one-for-one basis the same as armor. If there is no infantry available to move with them in the Mechanized Phase, they may move but not attack in that phase.

US MARINES
Attack 1
Defense 2
Cost 2/2
Production limit 2

Comment: US Marines were trained for, and had special equipment designed specifically for, amphibious assaults. To reflect this in the game, marines hit on a “2” on the first impulse of an amphibious invasion. In addition, ALL marine units fire in the first round of combat. Marines may only be deployed in the Pacific Theatre.

US DESTROYER ESCORTS
Attack/Defense vs. ships & aircraft 0
Attack/Defense vs. subs 2 (both naval and strategic warfare)
Cost 2/2/2
Production limit 4

Comment: The US both built and converted large numbers of small vessels specifically to fight subs, ranging in size from destroyer escorts to merely large yachts with a depth charge launcher. This rule mimics reality by allowing the building of purpose-built ships to engage in ASW at the expense of being able to do much else.

OPTIONAL RULES

SEA ZONE ATTACK – In the current rules (if I read them correctly), a player may make an amphibious invasion against a territory, and if the sea zone doesn’t contain enemy ships, the defender cannot react, even if he has aircraft in the territory being invaded. This is unrealistic, because in real life in this situation the defender would send his aircraft to attack the fleet. This rule allows the defender to fly air support against an adjacent sea zone, regardless of whether there is a sea battle there or not..

Comment: Not being able to fly air support against a fleet invading an adjacent empty sea zone is one rule in the game that really bugs me. It’s also inconsistent with the rule that allows aircraft to fly air support into an empty land territory that’s being attacked.

NIGHT BOMBING – A player may declare that any strategic bombing attack is being made at night. This is safer for the player making the raid, at the cost of reduced effectiveness. Heavy Bombers using Night Bombing roll one D6 for damage; Bombers roll one D3. Anti aircraft guns/88’s may only make two shots instead of 3 to simulate reduced effectiveness. Only Night Fighters can be used to intercept the raid. Due to the US commitment to daylight precision bombing, the US may not use Night Bombing in Europe.

LONG-LANCE TORPEDOES – Japan had the best torpedoes in the world at the outbreak of the war, and were able to score hits at ranges not thought possible for torpedoes. In addition, Japan was very highly skilled at making night attacks. To reflect this, Japanese destroyers can make Long-Lance torpedo attacks. After setting up the naval battle board, Japan designates any destroyers that are using Long Lance torpedoes. The Japanese player designates his targets the same way as is done with aircraft, and rolls their attacks before any other surface combatant. Torpedoes hit on a 2 as normal and any damage is scored immediately – any ship sunk by a Long Lance attack does not get to return fire. Japan may make these attacks in any battle taking place prior to 1943; after that the growing number of Allied ships using radar helped offset this advantage. The target of Long Lance torpedoes must be a ship with surface combat values unless there isn’t one in the enemy fleet.

Comment: This is a rule I suggested in another thread and really like. Japanese destroyers were really effective early in the war, and the Long-Lance torpedoes were yet another nasty surprise for the Allies.

AIR BASE AA – When airbases were constructed, AA defenses were almost always assigned permanently to the base. To reflect this, Level 3 airbases have 1 intrinsic AA shot; Level 5 airbases have 2 intrinsic AA shots. These are in addition to any AA unit that may be deployed in the same territory. The intrinsic AA cannot be destroyed, but also cannot be used against ground troops. If the airbase is captured, the intrinsic AA is captured as well.

US ARMOR DOCTRINE – US tactical doctrine in WWII specified that armor was intended to support infantry, not fight toe-to-toe with German armor. When encountering heavy armor, US doctrine specified that they were to be dealt with by dedicated tank destroyer units. To simulate this, casualties inflicted by US light or medium armor do not have to be taken against German heavy armor.

Comment: I’ve been trying to figure out a way to work tank destroyers into the game, and can’t really come up with anything. I thought of trying to make them like anti-tank guns except that they could attack and also move in the Mechanized Phase – but then they’d basically be armor, which would make them redundant, and there’s no point in increasing complexity for something that doesn’t really make a difference. However, the guy I game with regularly reminded me that US doctrine in WWII was that enemy armor was to be engaged by tank destroyers; armor was actually supposed to avoid engaging enemy armor if possible. This rule attempts to simulate the tactical doctrines in place during the war.

EXTREMELY OPTIONAL RULE

Magic/Ultra – Disclaimer: I think this can be a fun rule, but I also think that it can also be a very unbalancing one, so try it at your own risk. This one is more of a “thinking out loud” proposal, so there may be issues with this that I haven’t adequately thought through. At any rate, here it is…

One of the things that greatly benefited the Allies, especially early in the war, was the ability of the Allies to break the codes being used by the Axis. Examples of where the Allies used this ability against the Axis include the Battle of Midway, shooting down Yamamoto, and interdicting supply convoys in the Mediterranean. To simulate this in the game, use the following procedure.

In the Purchase New Units Phase, either of the Western Allies may allocate up to 6 economic points on Intelligence; Germany (if Italy is still in the Axis, they and Germany are considered one combined power for this rule), and Japan may allocate up to 6 economic points on Counter-Intelligence. The US and Britain have an intrinsic intelligence value of 2 before spending economic points (so by spending 6 points they could have a value of 8 ). Each turn, after the Axis has completed their movement and declared their battles, but BEFORE resolving any combat, either or both US and Britain may attempt to break Axis codes. To do so they roll one die. If the result of the modified die is higher than the amount of economic points spent by the targeted Axis power, the attempt is successful. The result of a successful attempt is that the Allied power that succeeds (or both of both succeed) may move units from ONE territory (one for each power if both succeed) into any other territory, subject to normal movement rules. This movement may be strategic or tactical, just as long as it is a legal move. A fleet with transports may pick up units from an adjacent territory and transport them to another territory (presumably one that is being attacked), subject to the normal naval movement rules.

If an Allied roll fails and the result of the die is an unmodified 1, the Axis power that the roll was directed to changes their codes and the Allies may not make a roll against that power in the next turn.

Each time the Allies use Magic to redeploy forces, the Axis receives one permanent victory point. This is limited to one point per turn per targeted power; if both US and Britain succeed and use Magic to redeploy forces against Germany/Italy, the Axis receives one victory point. If the Allies roll against both powers, succeed with both rolls, and react to both powers, the Axis receives two victory points. Because the US and Britain shared much of their intelligence information, the success of one of them allows both to react; however, they can still only move units out of one zone per successful attempt.

Example 1: Japan invades Midway in the Spring 1942 turn. After movement and declaring the attack, the US rolls for intelligence against Japan, and succeeds. The US moves a fleet adjacent to Midway to engage the Japanese fleet. The Axis receive a victory point.

Example 2: Germany makes a surprise attack into Belgium in the Winter 1944-45 turn. After Germany moves their forces and declares their attacks, Britain and the US make rolls for intelligence and one of them succeeds. They use 3 transports in the English Channel to strategically redeploy 9 infantry into Belgium. The Axis receive a victory point.

If using this rule, the Western Allies may NOT use Magic against Japan on the first turn that they are at war with Japan.

Comment: Okay, I know this one is really out there. Still, I think it could be a fun one to play with. I’m suggesting that each reaction by the Allies result in a victory point because this rule has the chance to really affect the outcome of the game. Giving it such a high price keeps it from being a gimmick for the Allies to use every turn, but rather something you use at a critical point.

186

Game Design / Re: Little question.

« on: September 10, 2007, 04:40:43 AM »

My suggestion would be to try a big chain store, like Michael's Crafts - I think they'd be most likely to be the most affrodable when you take into account that you wouldn't have to pay shipping as you would with an internet vendor.

187

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Border between USA and Canada

« on: September 06, 2007, 07:58:32 AM »

Yes, Japan really can have some fun when the US is too focused on Germany (but it isn’t so much fun for Germany…) – of course, you’re still fairly limited in just how much you can do with them if for no other reason than geography.

I agree that building a few ground units in England can stop the invasions – the problem is when he doesn’t build anything but aircraft and I’ve got 6 or 7 transports to use it becomes VERY tempting. The problem is that getting ashore isn’t that difficult, but staying there is.

Sorry, but travel isn’t really an option for me. I’m a recent newlywed, and I’m sure Cynthia wouldn’t be too crazy about me going on a trip just so I can play with my “little toys.” Besides, she’s from Brazil, and I really need to hoard my vacation time so that I’ll have plenty banked for when we want to go visit her family down there. I was hoping to go to Gen Con in Indy last month, but just couldn’t swing it financially. Hopefully I can go next year.

188

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Border between USA and Canada

« on: September 05, 2007, 09:15:26 AM »

Well, I was very fortunate. I had a very good Pearl Harbor attack, and I had invaded Midway with 6 infantry with the idea that if I did well enough that I would follow up with an invasion of Hawaii. Next turn, I did just that, as my opponent didn’t have anything to fly to Hawaii, and didn’t have a transport to ferry anything there. After I took Hawaii, it was sort of a case of “Now what?” I took the West Coast of the USA for a turn, but of course didn’t hold it. But I was strategically redeploying a lot of stuff to Hawaii to keep pressure on him, hoping to distract him from Germany. He was doing pretty well against Germany and wanted to keep the pressure on them, and so he tried to cut things close with Japan as to keep pounding Germany. At the cost of a CV and some fighters I sunk 2 carriers, a BB, 2 CA’s, and a DD (that’s in addition to Pearl Harbor – I don’t remember what I sank there) and shot down a lot of planes in the vicinity of the west coast. I took Dutch Harbor, and then the turn after that I got Western Canada. At that point I had to pull back; he had built a lot of planes and had two CV’s on the West Coast with 2 more coming off the ways, so things were about to get very unhealthy for me. I was able to strat 10 infantry to Dutch Harbor, and had a good stack of infantry with fighters at Hawaii, plus a large fleet there as well. I also took all of the other island victory points and the Philippines, and also Australia, so I was in very good shape in the Pacific.

In Europe I ran wild with Italy again and took the Suez and Iraq, as well as Gibraltar. He took Gibraltar back, but then I took it back the next turn. This kept Italy safe, but all of the amphibious invasions I was making meant that I wasn’t building very much.

Where I almost blew it was with Germany. My opponent likes to build a lot of aircraft as Britain at the expense of ground troops. This has happened the last three games, and the lack of ground troops always tempts me into invading England. I took London and Wales again this game, but couldn’t push him the rest of the way out of England, and he wound up taking it back. This hurt him and caused him to neglect Africa since he had bigger problems (which allowed Italy to go crazy), but in the end all of the resources I used in the England campaign really hurt me when he finally pushed me out. I wasn’t strong enough on the Russian front and the attrition there slowly wore me down. What really hurt was Russia having air superiority (I lost a lot of aircraft in the England adventure).

I wound up winning on points in Winter 1943-44. I was going to be able to take Burma and India fairly easily with Japan and he wasn’t going to be able to come up with 2 points to take back from me to save the game, so we called it there. It was a very close game though – another turn or two would have just about done it for Germany. I might have been able to hang on as Japan to the end given how much ground he would have had to make up, but it wouldn’t have been fun.

Lest anyone think poorly of my opponent, let me say that overall he played well. He does very well playing Russia. He didn’t do anything spectacular with Russia – he just kept applying constant and steady pressure, knowing that he was going to be able to wear me down – and he did. In this game he just fell into a sort of “tunnel vision” with the Western Allies concerning Germany, and tried to cut things close in trying to keep the pressure on them. He lost the West Coast when my last infantry hit and his missed. He of course pushed me out pretty quickly. While all of this was going on he was able to land in France in Spring 1943 and I never did get him back out. I think I’m going to have to adjust my strategy and stop letting myself be tempted by the cliffs of Dover – the last two games I’ve lost too many units I can’t afford to lose and it’s cost me later on. It’s just when you see London with a bunch of aircraft but only two infantry it’s hard to resist…
I don’t know if I’ll ever get to play any of you guys, but if you do you will probably want to have some sort of intervention group to keep me from going after England…

I’m going to try to convince him to use the optional aircraft rules so that aircraft block supply through a sea zone – that would make London a much tougher invasion to pull off. I also want to try the airbases out to see how they work – in our recent games we’ve both had circumstances where we’ve had ridiculous stacks of aircraft where in reality they never would have fit.

I still think that something isn’t quite right with fleets concerning supply. He had a fleet out in the Central Pacific while I was at Hawaii, and it just doesn’t seem right that a US fleet can move around and fight so freely when their supply line is cut off.

Oh well – time to tear it all down and set it up again for next game.

Getting back to my original question – I’m fine if Western Canada only connects to the Western US. Does that mean that Eastern Canada connects to both the Eastern US and Central US? The rules say that eastern and western Canada are connected, which means that you have a country with 2 territories connected to one with 3 territories. I’m sure that it will very rarely be an issue, but I do think this is one you should get locked down.

189

Rules questions from first edition / Border between USA and Canada

« on: September 05, 2007, 03:11:38 AM »

Something came up in the game we finished last night. I took Western Canada as Japan. Where is the border between Eastern and Western Canada as it relates to the US? Does Western Canada connect with the Central US? I couldn't have taken and held anything, but there were no units in the Central USA and I could have sent one infantry down to wreck the factories if it was connected to Western Canada. As I said, it isn't critical - I certainly couldn't have held it - but I was able to cause my opponent considerable heartburn with Japan and I would have liked to have been able to add to the harrassment.

190

Game Design / Re: Optional Naval Rules

« on: August 28, 2007, 05:13:19 AM »

I’m not sure if this is where this goes, but I wanted to ask about airbases. I noticed on the posted after-action reports that you’ve created markers for airbases. Any chance of making a sheet of those as a PDF available for download?

I think I’m going to suggest we use these rules in our next game. I wondered though what your experience has been in playtest. It seems to me that this largely benefits the Allies, especially in the Pacific. Japan is usually pretty cash-strapped as it is, and forcing them to pay for airbases seems like it might unbalance things. Has this created any balance issues in the games in which you’ve tried it?

As a counter to this, if we use airbases, we may try an optional rule to help the Japanese if it proves to make things too tough for them. The idea is this:

Long Lance Torpedoes – Japan had the best torpedoes in the world at the outbreak of the war, and were able to score hits at ranges not thought possible for torpedoes. In addition, Japan was very highly skilled at making night attacks. To reflect this, Japanese destroyers can make Long-Lance torpedo attacks. After setting up the naval battle board, Japan designates any destroyers that are using Long Lance torpedoes. The Japanese player designates his targets the same way as is done with aircraft, and rolls their attacks before any other surface combatant. Torpedoes hit on a 2 as normal and any damage is scored immediately – any ship sunk by a Long Lance attack does not get to return fire. Japan may make these attacks in any battle taking place prior to 1943; after that the growing number of Allied ships using radar helped offset this advantage.

If this rule proves to make Japanese destroyers too powerful, then adjustments can be made to require that Japan can only use this rule if it is the attacker in a battle, and/or state that any Japanese destroyers making Long Lance attacks do not count as a destroyer in battles where a submarine is present.

Your comments, thoughts, suggestions, threats, etc. are welcome.

191

Rules questions from first edition / A question on naval combat

« on: August 15, 2007, 04:26:01 AM »

We started another game last night, and so far it looks like a virtual replay of the first game. As the Axis I again took France but only after horrific casualties. I’m beginning to wonder if we’re doing something wrong, because it seems in every game France gives the Axis all they want no matter what builds or combat strategy the Axis uses. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the dice always seem to go France’s way.

Anyway, as Italy I’m running wild again, and I have the British Mediterranean fleet sealed in the Med after taking the Suez and Gibraltar in a very risky invasion. I know the rules say that fleets can’t be out of supply, but has anyone considered looking at this again? A fleet in this situation can’t operate at full capacity indefinitely. At some point, fuel, food, ammunition, etc. are going to become a problem. I wondered if maybe there should be a die roll for this type of situation – say, -1 for each turn out of supply after the first, with an additional -1 for each combat the fleet engages in. If/when the fleet fails the die roll, it suffers the same out of supply effects as land units. This would give some urgency to the owning player to do something to re-establish a line of supply.

The game continues to be a blast; we’re enjoying it more each time we play. By the way, if anyone’s interested, I wrote a quick review of the game, and had a couple of long-ish posts about it on one of the Avalon Hill forums; if you’re interested, you can read it here:

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=22157

Thanks - Bob

192

After action reports from first edition / Re: Game in Louisville KY

« on: August 13, 2007, 08:13:51 AM »

Wow - Italy had all of the Med and Mid East- That actually is a REALLY big deal. That can easily be a game winner. Of course without knowing what was left I am not sure if it offset losing all of your stuff.

Til next time!

John

One question, just to be sure we played this correctly. As Japan I went all the way down to the bottom of the map east of Australia, took the Suez Canal, and sent an Italian fleet to South Africa. If I read the rules correctly, this cut most of the British Empire out of supply, and they would only have the income from the British Isles, Canada, and New Zealand to build with. Correct?

193

After action reports from first edition / Re: Game in Louisville KY

« on: August 08, 2007, 05:39:28 AM »

Hi Bob,

Man - I don't know if I would have thrown in the towel if Italy owned all of the Middle East - despite Germany getting gutted in France. . . That is quite an accomplishment!

Yes, I felt good about it. Unfortunately it was Italy that ran wild, and not Germany. I simply couldn’t get out of the hole as Germany. The France debacle was probably compounded by some other things I did – I built a lot of subs to try to hurt England, and he was very effective at sinking most of them on their first turn. I also was able to grab London, and hold it for several turns. I had England down to just what they had in Canada and the British Isles, as I was able to cut the rest of their empire out of supply with the Japanese and Italian navies. By then the US was in the war, and that really changed things in a hurry. Also, I never could get my army big enough to do a credible Barbarossa, and Russia rolled extremely well in their attacks.

I and others agree with your Italian observation and it is one of the reasons for the Italian surrender optional rules that are now in the optional rules section of the rulebook (you can download them from this forum) - they help address what you identified.

I think I’m going to suggest we use those from now on.

Did the Italians get any of the triggers for Turkey and or Spain in taking out most of the Middle East - if they took all that territory, there was a good chance Turkey would join the war.

I achieved most of the Turkey and Spain triggers. Spain did not come in, and Turkey didn’t come in until I got the two Iraq territories; by then it was too little, too late.

I am not sure if the builds need to change - but open to everyone's thoughts on this.  Even with 30 points, the Italians can build 3 infantry, a tank, a fighter, a bomber and an artillery (for 26) that loads up their army pretty well before even starting on ships (not counting AA guns, AT guns, forts and other units).  The big constraint with Italy would be manpower and manufacturing ability.  I guess if you triggered Turkey - that would be one more infantry you could build (bringing it up to 4). . .

But I could see a custom rule along the lines of if Italian production doubled (to 28) - the Italians can double their tank, plane and ship builds or something along those lines.  Oil would be the big constraint - but if they owned the Middle East - I guess that would be resolved. .  .

I like this idea. Maybe say if they double their production and get both Iraq territories or Saudi Arabia they can double their build limits.

 

Wow - Italy had all of the Med and Mid East- That actually is a REALLY big deal. That can easily be a game winner. Of course without knowing what was left I am not sure if it offset losing all of your stuff.

Til next time!

John

Unfortunately Germany was just too far down the hole. When the end came, it was quick. It doesn't do much good to have Italians eating spaghetti in Cairo and Baghdad when the Allies are in Berlin. Italy also had gone about as far as they could – if we continued, I’d have had to pull back to meet the US threat in North Africa.

194

After action reports from first edition / Re: Game in Louisville KY

« on: August 08, 2007, 01:32:28 AM »

You're right John - we didn't roll correctly for France that game. Oh well - we were still near the beginning of the learning curve.

We finished up another game last night and I pretty much got my clock cleaned by the Allies (it didn’t help that I couldn’t roll dice to save my life any time it really mattered). I also took heavy casulaties taking Poland (yes, Poland). In one battle, Poland hit with every die roll. That sort of luck continued in France - France surrendered in Fall 1940 due to the presence of a single 88 in northeast France - every other unit (including ALL of my armor and Panzer Grenadiers) had been killed. I told Patrick then that the war was probably over as I wouldn't be able to make up the production deficit.

One thing that occurred to us though as we were playing is that the Italian rules didn’t really fit in the context of our game this time. I absolutely ran wild with Italy (Peter and Patrick were too busy pounding on Germany). I cleaned Britain completely out of North Africa, took control of the Suez, and took South Africa and all of Iraq. Due to Italy’s success, we didn’t think it was likely that Italy would surrender if the Allies had a temporary success in getting into Sardinia or Sicily. We were thinking of a rule that if Italy had secured territories outside of what they started with that there should be a positive modifier to the surrender roll – say, for every two (or three?) territories Italy conquers, they gain a +1 to their surrender roll for as long as they hold those territories.

We also talked about modifying the Italian build chart as well if they reached a certain level of success – letting them build 2 of each ground and air unit (and maybe destroyers and subs) instead of 1 if they made a certain number of conquests. I had Italy up to around 30 points a turn, but it didn’t do me much good since for everything except infantry you can’t have more than one unit on the production track. We felt that allowing them to “gear up” made sense given the economic impact such battlefield successes would produce. I ended up spending some money for my amphibious assaults, but still ended up putting things on the track not so much because I needed them, but just to use the income.

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts. Your comments, suggestions, threats, etc. are welcome.

Bob

195

Game Design / Re: Optional Naval Rules

« on: July 23, 2007, 05:12:52 AM »

While I think the idea of aborts (ala World in Flames) is a good one, I think Yoper’s idea as written would make these units too hard to kill. If you make all one’s an abort, I think you’re changing the combat results too much, since what would normally be kills will suddenly live to fight another day. A better way to handle aborts might be to say that for each plane that attacks, if it rolls a six, it is aborted. For example, say you have three fighters attacking. You roll a 1, 4, and a 6. The plane that rolls a 1 hits an enemy plane, the plane that rolls a 4 misses, and the plane that rolls a 6 is aborted and cannot fight in subsequent rounds. By taking aborts from misses rather than hits you won’t alter the current system as far as scoring casualties.

As to possible combat values for possible naval air units, I would advise not making them hit ships on anything higher than three. Remember, Japanese planes have a +1 on their first impulse of every combat once they declare war. If naval air hits ships on a 4, they’re going to hit on 5’s their first round. This would make a Pearl Harbor attack too strong in my opinion.