Messages

16

Game Design / Re: War entries

« on: September 01, 2006, 11:30:52 AM »

>...make Axis victory levels be lower the faster they can go
> to war with Russia and the US and be higher the longer
> they delay a world war with those powers?

I LIKE the idea of adjusting the VP chart up or down by say one or two VP per each turn that the Axis are early / late in attacking Russia or the US!   I think that's the ticket!  We'd of course would have to play with it a bit to see what sort of adjustment keeps things balanced. 

It could be quite simple to at least try out and I would suggest the following as a start: Each turn early that Barbarrossa goes off lowers all the VP level by say one VP, each turn late raises it by one VP.  For Pearl Harbor I'd be inclined to say two VP lower for each turn early / late. 

This way a one turn early Barbarossa and one turn early Pearl Harbor would lower the VP levels by three VP - quite a nice benefit to the Axis.  It would also keep the Allies guessing more (and which I'm not so sure is such a good thing, but what the heck, it'd be fun).

dd

17

Game Design / Re: War entries

« on: August 10, 2006, 05:27:05 AM »

I agree - I really don't like the virtually forced entry times of the Soviets & the US, but heck if I have a better idea and it does force the game to follow the major swing of historical events.  Even so, I think a tad more flexibility would be good.  How about something like delaying/speeding Barbarossa a turn does the opposite with regard to Pearl Harbor, or something.

dd

18

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

« on: July 18, 2006, 09:37:51 AM »

I have to admit that Germans building for a counter-attack to wipe out the D-Day invasion is a tempting strategy.  It sure would be fun if nothing else, what with the pile of troops which that implies.

The number of troops the Allies land the first turn is not really the issue. In general, I think the problem for the Allies is not getting ashore, but one of staying there after a turn or three of build-up (this assumes of course that the game is running tight).  The math is that each turn the Germans can rail some 15 troops, plus walk over another say 6-to-10 from Ruhr builds and from elsewhere. After say two or three turns of this, the Germans have potentially four to six dozen troops, a large fraction of which is good stuff, say tanks and artillery (this assumes things can be stripped from the Eastern Front).  This means the Allies have to be pumping in a good 8-10 troopships a turn just to stay competitive, let alone developing enough offensive capability to actually defeat the Germans. It's for this reason that I think the Allies have to have a seemingly excessive 'inventory' of troops ready-to-hand to feed the beachhead.

I don't think there's anyway that the Germans can afford to keep a large tank/artillery/infantry counter-attack force sitting idle in France waiting for the D-Day thing to happen (given the pressures of the East).  But, then again, if you don't build those subs... who knows. 

With your invasion scenario (20 Allied infantry and five tanks), the Germans would need at least say 10 tanks, 15, and 5 artillery in Paris, plus enough air to neutralize the Allies for two rounds of combat.  Pretty expensive just to keep sitting around waiting; and then the loss ratio after an immediate counter-attack in this scenario isn't that favorable to the Germans (I make out it's about 1:1).

It would be an interesting German strategy to try.  It should sure complicate Allied invasion difficulties.

dd

19

Strategy Tips / Re: Any ideas on how to start U Boat production early?

« on: July 17, 2006, 03:35:08 PM »

"I don't think you are getting it - building German factories early does not affect the size of total German ground forces (by about the time of Barbarossa / late '41)."

I DO get it - I said "If, you can get away with that and still knock France out effectively. . .  I agree your break even with troops by Barbarossa.

The question is can you build subs and factories and still take France out. . . I think that could be risky with good Allied play - or else the Axis throw Italy into a precarious position from the get go.

It is a good point about being able to take France out, pressure England, and still have a Barbarossa.  My thought at the moment is that it's doable, but you have to rely on France failing it's die roll.  Don't, but don't attack Paris as the casualties are too high for a factory & sub building program and still have a credible Barbarossa.

For those interested, I attached a pdf showing the effects of various build strategies on German production (build or don't build two factories, sub war versus no sub war against England) contrated with the game's 1941 Barbarossa scenario.  I will admit that, even having done the analysis, it takes guts to build those factories no matter what the numbers may say.

dd

[attachment deleted by admin]

20

Strategy Tips / D-Day invasions (long)

« on: July 17, 2006, 03:18:24 PM »

Since you have recently had the experience of playing the Western Allies ...can Germany win the race and make the Allies start over by kicking them off the continent?

Interesting question, and probably not surprisingly, I have thoughts on the matter.

Truth to tell, I think against a careful German, a Western Allied D-Day invasion is a tricky problem.  I have seen the Allies over and over again blow a D-Day invasion because of inadequate preparation.  When a D-Day has worked, it is often because of inadequate response on the part of the Germans or because they were already too far down in the game and the invasion was just a coup de grace anyway. 

Assuming good European Axis play, my rule of thumb is that the Western Allies need something like 15 to 18 transports available before making any serious attempt to go ashore in say 1943 or 1944. About eight transports are needed for shuttling builds from the US while the rest are needed for the invasion and subsequent build-up.

The Allies also MUST have something like at least twice as many troops within two sea zones of the beachhead as they can max carry in the invasion transports. In other words, 15 to 20 transports worth of troops need to be in 'inventory' (say two-dozen infantry and 20 tanks) and this needs to be above and beyond what is landed in the first wave.  Less than these quantities (let alone much less) and I think the Germans can often get a pretty good chance of smashing the invasion (and which would rate to set the Allies back a good year).

The Allies also almost certainly need air dominance if not in fact air superiority (those transports are just too vulnerable otherwise). I wonder if Mark still remembers the time I had 19 German fighters to his 11 Allied, chasing off his transports and thereby isolating the beachhead from further reinforcement... 

If the Allies don't have the requisite depth of troops ready-to-hand near the beachhead they tend to run out of troops the third or fourth turn of build-up (and which is the usual mistake they seem to make when a game gets this far).  At that point, they have to start strategic moving transports back and forth between US/Britain and the beachhead, with transports now only delivering troops every other turn instead of every turn and with some of them actually going empty for lack of troops.  The consequent loss of build-up tempo can give the Germans dominance over the build-up. 

The Germans need to rail in a large fraction of armor and artillery to do this right, and which should be a no-brainer if they can see the Allies have inadequate depth.  When the timing is right, they strategic back every Axis plane in Europe to neutralize Allied air power and then quite possibly you can scratch one beachhead (and which probably has no retreat options...).  Of course such a German reaction does take tremendous pressure off the Eastern Front and for which Uncle Joe Stalin will no doubt be grudgingly appreciative.  Meanwhile though, the Allies have just lost a pile of irreplaceable troops.

I really like this aspect of the game (a Western D-Day).  It often does not come up, but when it does, the game indeed seems to reproduce the Allied historical problem of having sufficient landing craft and the difficulty of winning the battle of the build-up.

Oh, and one last thing: Guess why as the US player I always max on tank production starting right at Pearl Harbor?  I suspect that the pile of tanks might be the only thing capable of standing between massed panzers and an annihilated beachhead.

dd

21

Strategy Tips / Re: D-Day invasions

« on: July 17, 2006, 03:14:13 PM »

Since you have recently had the experience of playing the Western Allies ...can Germany win the race and make the Allies start over by kicking them off the continent?

Interesting question, and probably not surprisingly, I have thoughts on the matter.  

See the post I started under "D-Day invasions".


dd

22

Game Design / Re: The problem of Italy

« on: July 14, 2006, 10:06:48 AM »

...Italy has fallen in 4 out of the last 6 games.  ...Do you still hold this position?

I would have to have seen those games to judge - blatant mess ups do not count. 

In the recent 1941 game at John's house (7/11), Sicily was successfully invaded, but that was because the Germans tremendously over-committed against Russia. In retrospect, the Germans had more than ample resources to have held the Allies at bay in the Med, but would have had to give up their romp through the Urals. 

The 1941 scenario also seems to leave the British relatively light trammeled compared to what can happen with a full-blown 1939 scenario. 

I will admit that if England is left relatively unmolested in 1940 and 1941, then Italy is probably screwed.  However, to me Italy still looks like an unduly tough nut given adequate early pressure on England to the extent of  a decent sub war and/or adequate support to the Italians in the Med. 

I am more than willing to be corrected on this, however I would much prefer someone other than me get beat up as the Italians to resolve the matter. 

dd

23

Strategy Tips / Re: Any ideas on how to start U Boat production early?

« on: July 11, 2006, 04:49:48 PM »

We played three games at Origins - the Axis won only the last one.

They did not build many subs.

They took Cairo... and triggered Turkey.

And then they launched the most overwhelming barbarossa I have seen in a while...

When it comes to the German view of Barbarossa, no bad thing can come of triggering Turkey!

Assuming Britain didn't get particularly beat up (what with few subs being built), I have to doubt the effectiveness of Allied play, one way or another.  I still stand by my claim that, absent weak Allied play (Germans in the Urals, eh?) or other undue randomness, the European Axis cannot succeed if they leave Britain unmolested. I'll be happy to play an unharrassed Britain anytime to demonstrate.   

Also, I tend to doubt that popping out just one sub per turn will do anything to keep a decent Brit busy or do over much to their production.  Brit ASW warfare mostly just means keeping destroyers & carriers guarding the convoys with at least a couple of covering cruisers near by as protection against a Kriegsmarine sortie. Destroying one sub a turn is usually no big deal with decent ASW coverage (absent my bad ASW dice, anyway).

dd

24

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Q & A - Mech attack after non-amphib transport

« on: July 11, 2006, 07:50:51 AM »

"Can mechanized units attack in the mechanized phase after they are landed via amphibious assault during the movement phase?"

No, per the Mechanized Phase rules on page 27:

...Mechanized units may not move into combat by moving into enemy owned territory if:
1)  ...
2)  The mechanized unit was landed as part of an amphibious assault on the general movement phase.
3)  ...

Presuming I haven't missed something, you might reword the above to make it explicit that any form of transport (not just amphibious assault)  precludes mech attacks by the transported units.  We had the case where the mech units were transported a short distance into a friendly zone  - NOT an amphib assault - and then wanted to mech attack, but apparently even this form of transport precludes mech attacks.

Truth to tell, the above particularly hurts the Western Allies D-Day landing since it means that a break-out / mech attack basically can't occur until the third turn of the lodgement:
Turn 1: Invade with infantry (typically)
Turn 2: Transport in a bunch of tanks and other good stuff (no mech attack allowed). [The Axis can almost certainly keep the initial infantry bottled up.]
Turn 3: Tanks and infantry attack out of the bridgehead.

dd

25

Strategy Tips / Re: Any ideas on how to start U Boat production early?

« on: July 06, 2006, 10:15:52 AM »

At the moment as I see it, the Germans need to do three things to "win": Build subs early, take out Cairo and have a credible Barbarossa.  Unfortunately it seems that they can really only do any two of the three, not all three. 

If Germans don't build the subs then Britain gets a free hand and which is a disaster for the Germans.  Cairo is important because it is a much cheaper way to get two victory points than taking any of the Russian victory point cities (i.e., Leningrad, Moscow, etc.).  As for Barbarossa, we've seen too often that insufficient early Easern front troops are a leading cause of an early German Gotterdammerung.

Not going after Cairo is an option, but it's just so damn attractive... and such nice triggers too!

The only solution I can come up with at the moment is one of two possibilities: Rely on poor Allied play or take minimal casualties in France while getting at least one or two triggers.  Unfortunately, history seems to indicate that German successes seem to derive more often from the first possibility than the second.

dd

26

Strategy Tips / Re: Any ideas on how to start U Boat production early?

« on: July 06, 2006, 10:04:05 AM »

I don't think you are getting it - building German factories early does not affect the size of total German ground forces (by about the time of Barbarossa / late '41).  Instead the choice is whether or not to build subs in a big way. 

If you build no subs and no factories you wind up with as many ground troops as if you built no subs but did build two factories. 

If you build subs and no factories you wind up with as many ground troops as if you built subs and also two factories. 

Do the math... 

dd

27

Strategy Tips / British air & anit-sub builds

« on: May 08, 2006, 11:33:17 AM »

John wrote:
>I agree with your defense of the Atlantic
>strategy. Get the extra carrier
>and destoyers out quickly.

The way I have seen it, not making the Battle of the Atlantic absolutely top Royal Navy priority (second only to holding London) is yet one more way for the Allies to lose the war.  Against a determined German U-boat campaign, even when the Atlantic has top priority, things can still be hairy; anything less than top priority spells almost guaranteed disaster.

John wrote:
>Brits need to TRY to max out fighters
>(or close to it) -  They may need lend lease
>right away to do all of this building.
 
Maxing Brit fighters is laudable and I agree requires high US lend lease prior to Pearl Harbor.  Unfortunately, this now flies in contradiction to my perceived need to also build US carriers at the same time (due to unforted islands only basing one plane), and which can only come from lend lease funds.  I currently favor the Brits keeping the Royal Navy away from the Luftwaffe during late 1940 and 1941 so that a large Brit fighter force is not such a priority.  However, the jury is still out on this for me.  Obviously there are contradictory requirements here between lend lease needs, Brit fighters, and American carriers (and lord knows what else) and for which I currently have no resolution.

dd

28

Game Design / The problem of Italy

« on: May 08, 2006, 11:13:09 AM »

As things stand now, I am indeed having my doubts about the viability of Allied victory in the game - so perhaps I eat my words at least a bit on this score. :|  I think this is particularly so with the changes in the Pacific rules this last game (changed early Jap builds and unforted islands only basing one plane). 

If the Allies are to meet or beat the precipitous drop in Axis VP levels that occurs throughout 1944, then an Italian or Jap collapse is mandated by late 1943 or early 1944 at the latest. Currently, I simply do not see that happening with decent Axis play.
 
If there is one thing I would put my finger on in the game that is not right, it is that the Italians are just too, too tough.  Usually with little more than say a half-dozen German fighters and a few ground pieces, they typically hold off virtually the entire might of the British Empire for two years or so (1940-1941).  Add to this that nobody, but nobody has so much as managed to hold, let alone even invade an Italian mainland province in - what? - say at least the last 20 games or so?  I frankly cannot remember the last time Italy was successfully invaded.  The only time I can remember Italy falling was sometime in one or two of the first four or five games we played when playtesting way back when.  Let's also not forget that most if not all the Italian fleet pretty much survives to the game's end.

Perhaps, and I mean just by the merest margin of perhaps, that without any Axis triggers and with very exacting excellent Allied play (and which I haven't seen exactly much of in recent games), I might be wrong and Italy can be taken out, but recent history certainly backs me on this.

As always, my $0.02 worth,

dd

29

Strategy Tips / Re: To build factories or not to build factories

« on: April 14, 2006, 06:53:45 AM »

I know two German factories sounds scary (I told you it takes guts to build them...), but here's my reasoning.

Since France is usually finished off by turn four (Summer '40), I can't see how starting a factory on turn two could possibly consistently impact the French outcome.  A turn two factory loses at most 12 points of production that the Germans might have gotten into France instead of into the factory. If the battle is so close that 12 points would make a consistent difference, then the Battle of France would have to pretty much be a 50-50 chance matter to start with (and which we know it is not, now that French colonial forces stay away to keep the natives under control).

As for Barbarossa and German factories encouraging Russian stalwartness at the borders, if you do the math, a turn two factory has almost broken even at the start of Barbarossa (meaning it's almost a push as far as the number of forces the Russians see as of Barbarossa).  A second factory started on turn three puts the Germans down something like 20-25 PP as of the start of Barbarossa (if my math is right), and which I cannot see being the difference between the Russians being able to hold at the border or not.  Since the Russians (probably) have to fall back from the initial on-slaught against only a (slightly) weakened German attack, the extra few turns brings the second factory pretty much to the break-even point also (and which occurs the Winter '41-42 turn).

And, as they taught me in B-school, once you hit break-even, the rest is all gravy.

dd

30

Game Design / Miscellaneous rules ideas

« on: April 14, 2006, 06:25:14 AM »

The following are my replies to some design ideas Mark was floating around and which I thought might interest folks.  Marks stuff is lower case and mine is in caps.  Note that Mark's comments are actually from two emails I merged together.

dd


At 07:08 PM 4/5/2006, mark melenovsky wrote:
It really does not matter if China can build planes and artillery...

AGREED.


We can continue to let Stukas and Sturmoviks pick their targets - I guess this adds a little flair to the game after all.

DOUBLY AGREED.  EVEN THOUGH STUKAS UNDER MY COMMAND ALWAYS DIE PREMATURE AND HORRIBLE DEATHS, I STILL LIKE THE EFFECT (IGNORING JOHN'S TECHNIQUE OF BUILDING 2 MILLION OF THEM, NOT WITHSTANDING)


Surrounded units are all -1 including infantry: morale of the story: don't get surrounded - which is the whole reason we made the supply rules to begin with.

TRIPLY AGREED!


Two hit carriers. . . still thinking this one over. . . How about this: 
Brit, German,Italian carriers cost 4,4,4,4 carry one plane, but take two hits to sink.  Jap carriers cost 4,4,4,4 carry 2 planes but only one hit to sink.  US carriers cost 5,5,5,5 carry two planes and take two hits to sink. 
light carriers cost 4,4,4 carry one plane and take one hit.  I think I may like this - let me know what you think.

I SORT OF LIKE THIS ONE, BUT HAVE TO QUESTION IF THE EXTRA COMPLICATION IS REALLY WORTH IT (REMEMBERING WHICH CARRIERS ARE ONE-HIT VERSUS TWO-HIT).


OK, new item on the table for debate:   James said something long ago which has had me thinking lately.  Something about the Pacific theater is still not quite right. 

I AGREE THE PACIFIC IS STILL NOT QUITE RIGHT, BUT IT IS MUCH, MUCH BETTER THAN IT WAS.  IN FACT, IF YOU ARE WILLING TO STRETCH A POINT OR TWO, THE LAST TWO BANG-UPS BETWEEN MARK AND ME IN THE PACIFIC REALLY WERE "ISLAND HOPPING CAMPAIGNS", BUT JUST WITHOUT ANY DECISVE KNOCK-DOWN-DRAG-OUT BATTLES.  AS THE JAP PLAYER, I KEPT "GRACEFULLY" STEPPING BACK OUT OF HARM'S WAY AS MARK BULLIED HIS WAY FORWARD, ISLAND BY ISLAND, IN MID-TO-LATE 1943.  OF COURSE, HE WASN'T SUFFICIENT A BULLY TO QUICKLY ENOUGH SAVE THE ALLIES FROM LOSING ANYWAY... )

What if we did something like this:
territory worth 0PP: can only airfield 1 plane
territory worth 1PP: can airfield 3 planes
territory worth 2PP: can airfiled 6 planes
Territory worth 3PP: can airfield 8 planes, etc.
Territory worth 4pp+ unlimitted.
Additionally, anyone can build an airfield for the cost of like 2pp which increases the airfield capacity of a territory by 2 planes.

Would this capture the war in the Pacific better?  Make carriers a bt more important too?  What does this do to battles in the European theater.  At first thought, I kind of like this idea - but I don't know.

I ALSO SORT OF LIKE THE IDEA OF LIMITING PLANE BASING, BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY LOTS OF UNINTNEDED ISSUES AND DIFFICULTIES.  HOW ABOUT SAYING THAT ISLANDS LOCATED BETWEEN SEA ZONE BOUNDARIES AND WITH ZERO PP CAN ONLY BASE ONE PLANE, AND EACH FORT INCREASES CAPACITY BY TWO ADDITIONAL PLANES?  HOWEVER, I HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT PLACING PLANE BASING LIMITS ON ANYTHING AS I EXPECT IT IS GAURANTEED TO SCREW THE JAPS, WHO I THINK HAVE AN INNATE LOSING POSITION TO BEGIN WITH.  HOWEVER, LIMITS IN SOME FORM MIGHT KEEP THAT HUNDRED THOUSAND FIGHTER PLANE JAP AIR FORCE THAT I BUILD PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR FROM CAUSING THE WEIRDNESSES THAT IT DOES.


OK, forget my airbase idea for now. . . .

I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME MERIT TO SOME FORM OF AIR BASE LIMITATION, PARTICULARLY IN THE PACIFIC.  IN THINKING A BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT SEEMS TO BE MAKING THINGS NOT QUITE RIGHT IN THE PACIFIC, I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS NO COST TO CONCENTRATING EVERYTHING IN ONE PLACE AND NO COST IN MASSIVE STRATEGIC MOVEMENT OF 100% OF EVERYTHING FREELY AROUND THE PACIFIC.  SINCE THERE ARE NO COSTS, THERE IS A NATURAL TENDENCY TO CONCENTRATE EVERYTHING IN ONE PLACE BY WHICH EVER SIDE IS THE STRONGER SO AS TO GUARANTEE BEING ABLE TO OVERWHELM THE OPPONENT AT THE DECISVE PIECE OF GEOGRAPHY ON ANY PARTICULAR TURN.  IT IS THIS CHEAP CONCENTRATION IN ONE PLACE WHICH IS THE REAL CULPRIT MAKING THINGS NOT QUITE RIGHT IN THE PACIFIC, OR SO I SUSPECT.  PLACING BASING LIMITS ON SMALL ISLANDS (I.E., ONE'S WITHOUT PP), MIGHT FORCE AT LEAST THE PLANES TO BE SPREAD OUT MORE.  THIS SHOULD SERVE TO MAKE ATTACKING AN ISOLATED ISLAND LESS POTENTIALLY LETHAL TO DOUBLE-HIT CARRIERS.  JAP CARRIERS COMING IN DEFENSE OF AMERICAN ASSAULTS WOULD ALSO BE CRITICAL FOR COUNTER-BALANCE (AND WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IF ONE CAN SIMPLY FLY IN AN ARBITRARY NUMBER OF DEFENDING JAP FIGHTERS TO KEEP THE AMERICANS IN CHECK). 

I FOR ONE WOULDN'T MIND SEEING THE USA AND JAP PLAYER TRYING SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR THIS COMING WEEKEND (I.E., ISLANDS WITH NO PP CAN HOLD ONE (TWO?) PLANE(S), AND FORTS INCREASE BASING CAPACITY).  I DO WORRY THAT THIS MIGHT MAKE THE PACIFIC COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE FOR THE JAPS, BUT WHO KNOWS?


But these two I think I would like to try:

Paratroopers can paradrop on the Mech phase provided they and the bomber that convey them do not move during the regular movement phase (don't know why I did not think of this earlier).

MAKING PARATROOPERS MORE INTERESTING IS A WORTHY GOAL, I THINK.  HOWEVER, ALLOWING MECH PARA DROPS COULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE HOW THINGS WORK ON THE EASTERN FRONT.  THEN AGAIN, AS I THINK THROUGH VARIOUS SCENARIOS IN MY MIND, YOUR PROPOSED CHANGES MIGHT NOT INHERENTLY AFFECT ANYTHING AND CERTAINLY MIGHT SERVE TO OPEN UP SOME ASPECTS OF THE GAME (SUCH AS MECH ATTACKS).  AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, MECH MOVEMENT IS USED FAR MORE OFTEN TO MECH FRIENDLY THAN IT IS TO MECH ATTACK BECAUSE MECH ATTACKING IS USUALLY TOO RISKY, PARTICULARLY FOR GERMANS.


Another one I think would improve the overall role of paratroopers in the game is this: They only hit on a "2 or less" on the turn they are dropped. 
But, on a "4 or less" they still secure bridges and their objectives, doing away with the river and amphib penalty.

SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.


I like both of these - and maybe willing to try them on Saturday.

Also, I think we should stick with the last carrier rules.

I DON'T THINK THE CARRIER RULES CHANGES YOU'VE PROPOSED MAKE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.  I THINK DOUBLE-HIT CARRIERS SIMPLY MEAN THAT (A PROPERLY PLAYED) USA MIGHT BE WILLING TO BE A TAD MORE AGRESSIVE WITH CARRIERS, BUT THEN AGAIN, PERHAPS NOT.  I THINK THE AIR BASE LIMITATION IDEA IS A BETTER BET.