Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Bobsalt

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14
151
Game Design / Re: A couple of rules ideas
« on: January 25, 2008, 04:12:43 AM »
One quick note: In the current game - you ONLY collect income for occupying enemy territories. If you have no ground unit in the territory - you do not collect income...
John,

I know this. What I was suggesting is that in addition to the rule where you do not get income from unoccupied enemy territories was that you also could not trace supply through unoccupied territories. Combined I think these two rules would simulate the effect of partisan activities within the scope of the game without actually adding physical units to the game.

152
Rules questions from first edition / Re: Questions on Italian morale
« on: January 24, 2008, 09:20:53 AM »
We started a new game last night, and (as usual) a couple of questions came up.

1) The first one concerns strategic bombing attacks. On page 28 the rulebook reads, “The defender may intercept strategic bombing attacks with planes in the attacked territory as well as defending planes adjacent to the attacked territory.” What if a bomber flies over a territory containing a fighter, but bombs a territory that is not adjacent to that fighter? Would that fighter get a chance to fight the bomber as it flew over? Common sense would seem to indicate that it could, especially since if it were an AA gun it could shoot at the bomber; on the other hand, I can see why it shouldn’t be able to for game balance purposes.

2) In all probability Jason (the Axis player) will invade Spain next turn. The rules say that if Spain enters the Axis Germany may build one infantry per turn in Madrid. If Germany invades Spain, does this then allow Britain to build one infantry per turn there instead?

3) I’m still curious about my question from another thread – why isn’t Slovakia a production territory for Germany? The Skoda works there produced tanks, assault guns, artillery, and small arms during the war. Shouldn’t this be a production territory for Germany – or is there a game balance reason behind this?

Thanks - Bob

153
Game Design / Re: A couple of rules ideas
« on: January 24, 2008, 08:46:29 AM »
I’m undecided on this, and could go either way. On the Russian Front, a rule that you have to garrison each territory with an enemy infantry popping up there if you don’t the way it works with Japan in China makes a certain amount of sense considering how much havoc Soviet partisans caused and how much effort and resources Germany continually had to expend in suppressing them. On the other hand, I also can see the opportunity for abuse here. On the other hand, it could be argued that not having a garrison in an income producing territory causes the income to be lost is a reflection of partisan activity.

As an idea to try and reflect partisan activity my suggestion would be that not only does an un-garrisoned income territory not produce any income, but that you also cannot trace supply through a territory that doesn’t contain at least one ground unit as a garrison. This doesn’t create the opportunity for abuse that placing a free infantry would create, but does give a player an incentive to have troops sitting in territories that, while are not at a given moment very useful in game terms, would in real life have garrison troops.

As to Home Guards or Volkstrum units (or even Russian conscripts), I tend to agree with Mark. I personally agree with the idea that if someone doesn’t protect himself he pretty much deserves whatever happens because of it.

I also see problems working Volkstrum into the game in a historical fashion, at least as the game is currently set up With infantry already having combat factors of 1 offense/2 defense there isn’t really any room to lessen their combat effectiveness sufficiently to be as comparatively less effective as they would need to mirror the historical differences between them and regular infantry. I liked the way that World in Flames handled them – their Volkstrum had less effective stats and were cheaper than regular infantry. In the new game using the d-12 system, if the new infantry are 2 offense/ 3 or 4 defense you could make Volkstrum a 1 offense/2 or 3 defense, and make them cheaper as well. If this route were taken I would say that once Germany makes the decision to build them that they have some sort of penalty restricting how many regular infantry or Panzergrenadiers they can build. In WiF, once you start building Volkstrum you can’t go back and build any regular infantry. I think that’s a bit much, but I do think there should be some sort of penalty.

For Russian conscripts or British Home Guards, you could make them the same stats as the Volkstrum but not limit (at least, in production capacity) the building of other infantry units. My reasoning for this is that though Britain is trying to build up defensively (presumably any such units would be built in the early war when Sea Lion is a possibility), they didn’t have the desperation that Germany had in organizing Volkstrum; the Russians, though as (or more) desperate, had the manpower available to send untrained men into the meat grinder while still being able to raise and train large numbers of regular troops.

154
Game Design / Re: A couple of rules ideas
« on: January 21, 2008, 02:01:33 PM »
A little rules for germany. If germany defend our home territory i gain two or tree infantry free for the VOLKSTRUM unit. Not a big quantity for the bad quality of this units.
Are these regular infantry? I thought of trying to come up with Volkstrum or Russian conscripts, but it's hard to come up with anything under the current infantry.

Mark/John - is there anything like these units in your prototype d-12 game - like maybe the National Effort rules in World in Flames?

155
Rules questions from first edition / Re: Questions on Italian morale
« on: January 18, 2008, 07:25:08 AM »
I had lunch with Peter and we came up with two more questions regarding the optional Italian morale rules:

1) When does the Italian surrender take effect if they get to -8? If the Allies take a territory that gets the Italians to -8, is surrender immediate or does the Axis get their half of the next turn to get back above -8?

2) In our current turn Crete is in Italian hands. If the Axis player wants to build an airbase there can Germany pay for it or does Italy have to buy it since the territory is Italian? Since in the rules Germany cannot give Italy any income I assume that Italy would have to pay for it.

156
Rules questions from first edition / Re: Questions on Italian morale
« on: January 18, 2008, 03:42:17 AM »
Thanks for the reply Craig.
1) Base rules for supply state that naval units are always considered to be in supply, but I could see where this could seem strange if the land and air units in the home country are considered out of supply.
This is something that has bothered me since I got the game. Since ships are always in supply it sometimes leads to some rather questionable handling of fleets when they are cut off from a base. Watching a fleet that’s out of supply just steam around and engage in battle after battle with no ill effects just really bothers my sense of realism. It also makes me wonder just where they’re getting the fuel they need for all this steaming. There is an excellent article on www.combinedfleet.com (http://www.combinedfleet.com/guadoil1.htm) where the author postulates how oil (or the lack thereof) impacted Japanese naval strategy in the Guadalcanal campaign.

He uses a Hatsuharu-class DD as an example. With a fuel capacity of 500 tons of fuel, cruising at 15 knots gives it an endurance of roughly 400 hours. Of course, you can’t fight a battle at 15 knots (not for long, anyway…), and at its flank speed of 34 knots its endurance drops to 30 hours as its fuel consumption goes up by a factor of 13. In other words, it goes from having enough fuel to steam for a little over 2 weeks to having enough to last a little over a day – and we’re talking about a game where turns are several months. Even steaming at 15 knots means that this DD would have to refuel at a minimum of six times in a three-month turn; again, just where are they getting all this fuel?

This is why I strongly feel that something needs to be done in regard to fleets that are out of supply. I’ve had games where I took Gibraltar and the Suez, and yet the British fleet trapped in the Med was able to cruise around for several turns and fight several battles. In real life they simply could not do this – with no supply line they aren’t going to have the fuel, and with even the most liberal of concessions they would be out of fuel the next turn. The only thing they could do is steam for any port they may still control.

Another example would be Hawaii. If Japan had been able to take Hawaii the US fleet would had to have retreated to the West Coast and would have been severely limited in how far they would be able to operate from there; in the game, Japan can take Hawaii – and the US can steam around the central Pacific unaffected.

I’m not sure how to address the issue, but I’m convinced that it does need to be addressed. Possibly saying that a fleet that is out of supply cannot make attacks would help. Another idea might be that a fleet can only operate a certain distance (in sea zones) from a friendly island or territory that is itself in supply. A fleet that is cut out of supply would have to immediately move to re-establish a line of supply.

This may not be an issue for some. For me, the fairly high level of realism the game simulates means that it should be addressed.

As to these optional morale rules, the easy answer is to just say that naval units are unaffected (per the regular supply rules).

2) I didn't see anything in the rules that states that an OOS Bomber couldn't perform a paradrop.  It probably should. 
The reason I bring up these first two questions is that I’m trying to determine the intent of the rules regarding the forbidding of amphibious invasions or paradrops by units that are OOS. I also don’t think this is specifically addressed in the rulebook, and so a ruling is needed. For whatever it’s worth, I think the Axis out to be able to use Italian units that are OOS to land German troops; otherwise, once Italy is out of Africa they would never be able to get back in.

3) Good question.  I would think that it would be apparent to the Italian player to not move out of the Med. theater because of this, but you never know what the situation is.  It just might come up in the course of a game.  It should be covered.
The group I gamed with 20 years ago had a couple of guys who were absolute weasels who would stay up nights trying to figure out ways to abuse rules to their advantage. I think they got more enjoyment out of all the arguing than they did from playing. That experience has caused me to try and see potential issues ahead of time and ask for clarification. The guys I game with are great guys, and I’m confident they would agree that Italy couldn’t use troops outside the Med in this situation, but random guys at a game club meeting might be as logical.

4) It shouldn't matter since you are just tracing back through the affected territories to your own production centers.

Craig
I agree.

157
Rules questions from first edition / Questions on Italian morale
« on: January 17, 2008, 09:36:29 AM »
We started a new game last night and are trying out the optional Italian morale rules, and I have a couple of questions.

Italy has been kicked out of Africa, and currently stands at -5 on the morale table, which means that all of their units are treated as being out of supply.

1) Rules for being out of supply state that units that are OOS cannot make amphibious invasions. Could the Germans use Italian transports to make amphibious invasions in the Med, or does the OOS situation prohibit using the Italian transports?

2) Same question as above but for paratroops (Italian bomber dropping German paratroopers).

3) This level of morale indicates that Italian units that are outside of the Mediterranean Theatre immediately surrender. Probably a dumb question, but I assume that this would also prevent Italy from deploying any units outside of the Med until/unless their morale gets back above -5 since they would presumable desert immediately upon leaving the Med?

4) Does the OOS situation of the Italians impact Germany’s ability to trace supply through Italian-controlled territories (I am assuming it does not)?

THanks - Bob

158
Rules questions from first edition / Re: New units/rules ideas
« on: January 17, 2008, 04:46:52 AM »
I’m getting ready to place an order for some Tumbling Dice aircraft (if anyone knows of someone else selling Axis & Allies-sized aircraft please let me know), and I had a couple of thoughts about aircraft that I wanted to post before I forgot them.

What was the reasoning for the 5 combat value for the Me 262? This is probably a very minor issue, since we have yet to have a game go long enough for Germany to actually build one, but it seems a little overpowering., especially when compared to the abilities of other fighters. We wondered if it shouldn’t be 4 instead, or, since the primary advantage the Me 262 had over piston fighters was speed, possibly using normal values for the Me 262, but giving enemy aircraft a -1 in combat against them (or maybe using both). As I read what I just wrote I realize that might be a pain in the neck to keep track of in battles where Germany has Me 262’s and regular fighters – perhaps the 5 combat value is better after all just to keep things simple.

The next thing I thought of was buying some Me 163 miniatures and making them sort of Germany’s version of the Kamikaze. My reasoning is that they were extremely fast and very deadly against bombers, but their engines only had a life of about 25 hours (assuming they didn’t explode on landing, as they had a habit of doing). My thought was to let Germany build them at a cost of 4 each in one turn, and that they would have a combat value of 3 against fighters and 5 against bombers (0 versus ground targets). Due to their extremely short range they could not react to an adjacent territory - they can only defend in the territory in which they are deployed. After the first round of combat they are considered to be destroyed.

I’d also like someone from Detroit to send a reply and let me know the specifics on what values you’re using for naval air. I have my own ideas about what to use, but if you all have been using them and they work there's no point in reinventing the wheel (propeller?) and I'd like to be able to shamelessly take advantage of your experiences with them.

And Mark, I remember that you said you were using Me 110’s – what is the starting mix you’re using for Germany of fighters vs. Me 110’s, and what are the build restrictions as to how many Me 110’s Germany has to build?

As always, everyone’s comments, ideas, suggestions, threats, etc. are welcome.

Bob

159
Rules questions from first edition / Re: Cutting the Soviet Union in half
« on: January 07, 2008, 08:13:12 AM »
You are correct- Allies can not attack neutral Italy.

Madagascar's point was for game balance.

I will let Mark answer the Slovakia question wen he gets back next week.

Thanks-John
OK, no problem. I was considering playing the next game with it as a build center, but I'll wait to hear what Mark says.

160
Rules questions from first edition / Re: Cutting the Soviet Union in half
« on: January 03, 2008, 06:52:03 AM »
OK, we started another game last night, and in our discussions we came up with another question. If Italy doesn’t get into the war before the US comes in, the rules state that it goes neutral. If it should subsequently be attacked, do we use the set-up given for the start of the war? Our thought is that we would just leave whatever had been built by Italy previously on the board, though I guess an argument could be made that without Italy getting into the war (because of the fall of the Mussolini government?) there would be a draw-down of the military. I’m also assuming the general prohibition of the Western Allies to declare war on a neutral would apply to Italy as well, and thus Italy could only be attacked by Germany?

Another issue came up in our discussions as well - namely, the economic values given to certain territories relative to one another. For example, Madagascar has the same value (1) as each of the presumably more industrialized territories that make up Spain. Was there a conscious reason for this, or was this for game balance purposes?

We wondered also about why the territory of Slovakia is not a production territory for Germany, given the presence of the Skoda Works, which was used by Germany to produce tanks, assault guns, artillery, and AT guns through the course of the war (perhaps these last two questions more properly belong in the Game Design thread?).

Stay tuned for the results of our session next week, where we will continue to try to present you with more of the improbable, imponderable, impossible, inconsequential, and/or idiotic.

Bob

161
Rules questions from first edition / Re: Cutting the Soviet Union in half
« on: December 26, 2007, 03:56:50 AM »
Ok,
    So they way the Soviet Union works - and all countries for that matter is:

As long as you are in supply, you can build any amount of product in your home production center. The county being split has no bearing on supply or build capacities.

You can always implement house rules but I am not sure what that would add to the game.

Later- John
OK, thanks John. I think we will make a house rule for that. It was something that all three of us playing immediately questioned when it happened. There would be no way to get the income from the eastern half of the SU to the production centers cut off by the Germans, and given the fairly high level of realism you've achieved in the game this just seemed to us to be a bit of a hole.

162
Boy - ok, tough one.  Sounds like a disastrous game for the Axis.  I recall we played one game a few years ago that actually had the French invading Germany in 1941 - needless to say the Germans threw in the towel. . .

We created those Polish rules later to penalize the Germans for not taking out Poland and did not consider the effects on border requirements.

I think I am leaning to say that the border requirement rules stand only for the territories specified in the rulebook - it is the Soviet players option to dump more guys into Poland or not - but he is not forced to.  does that seem reasonable.
This seems reasonable to me, and this is the way that we played it.

Another thought is to put a few sudden death victory points in the game like: If Poland does not fall to the Axis on the first turn, they lose.  And, if France does not fall by end Winter 1940, the Axis lose.  It seems to me that if France is not out of the game by then, it is just a long agonizing defeat for the Germans anyway.  I could be wrong on that - I mean a poor Russian player or great Italian play against the Brits could still swing the game Axis. .
I don’t agree with the idea of a “sudden death” provision such as you mention here, precisely for the scenario you suggest at the end. We had 2 games in a row where I just couldn’t get a break as Germany, but the Italians absolutely ran wild. Because of this, even though the British had the upper hand in France and the North Atlantic, the Italians created no end of problems. In both of these games as Italy I took out both Gibraltar and the Suez, then on to take out Persia and cut the British Empire out of supply. In both games, after the disasters in Africa my opponent gambled that he could take out Germany before Italy and Japan could win the game. He made it one time; I won the other. Either way, both games were competitive, and among the most fun games we’ve had. Because of the possibility of a situation like this, I prefer leaving things as they are. After all, if a game starts out badly a group can always decide on their own to reset it if they want to.

I can see going the “sudden death” route for not taking Poland. The way the game is set up, if Germany doesn’t take out Poland on turn one it’s fairly certain that it’s directly the result of something the German player did. However, France is a different story, and sometimes Germany fails in France even when properly played due to bad die rolls. I don’t like “sudden death” trigger like this in general because I think they can actually lead to an increase in risky actions. My experience in gaming is that many people will do ridiculous things when they don’t have to live with (so to speak) the consequences of their actions – but it’s a different story if they know they are going to have to game on for several more turns having to deal with their earlier rash decisions.

Perhaps a better way to penalize the Germans for not taking out Poland on turn one would be (in addition to the current rules) to penalize them a permanent -1 victory point. Another possibility if using variable Soviet entry would be to have this be more severe than a 1-card draw. Given the real world ramifications if this had happened, I think you could justify this event being worth 2 or even 3 cards.

Another idea would be that if this happens the Soviets production remains halved, but any factories placed on the map before at war produce at full capacity instead of being halved – or even that Russia gets one free factory to be placed immediately. Either of these could be said to represent the confidence that Stalin would have that he could take out Germany when the time came and began gearing up for this faster than was historical.

163
Rules questions from first edition / Re: Cutting the Soviet Union in half
« on: December 26, 2007, 02:51:38 AM »
The restriction is correct - the Soviet Union swtiches over from ealy war to mid war fighters.  Seven fighters are included just so you have a couple of spares in case a model breaks.

...which is exactly what happened. Those upper wings on the biplanes can be rather delicate.

Thanks for the clarification on the fighters. What about my original question about cutting the SU in half? Is there an official ruling on that, or does anyone care to weigh in?

Sorry for all of the questions as of late. But look at the bright side - all these rule questions come up because we're getting so many games in by playing every week.

164
Well, it’s your problem child again. I know that it seems like every time I make a post it’s because we had something weird happen that never seems to come up when anyone normal plays the game. Well, Peter and I played last night, and we had yet again another one of “those” games, which leads to more “what do we do if…” questions.

Peter was Axis and I was Allies. Peter started out with the attack on Poland. Now, he has always in my opinion gone a little light against Poland in order to have a strong punch against Belgium in the Winter 1939-40 turn. This time it turned out to be too light – believe it or not, be bounced off of BOTH Poznan and Warsaw. He had deployed all of his panzer grenadiers and armor west, so he had nothing to follow up with in the Mech phase so, as per the rules, the remaining Poles and territories went over to Russia.

When things go bad right at the start it’s sometimes a better idea to just reset the pieces and start over. It seems so often that when things go really wrong right at the start it sometimes just doesn’t get any better – something I’m sure we can all commiserate with from personal experience.

This was another one of those times.

The attack on Poland didn’t just go bad – it went REALLY bad. Not only did Peter not take out 2 out of 3 Polish Territories, I also rolled really well for Poland and inflicted VERY heavy casualties on Germany – so much so that they had only one ground unit left on the Eastern Front, which meant he had to place builds intended for the fight in Belgium in the east instead (as an aside, anyone ever notice that when you make a strategic blunder in a wargame, you will then compensate by rolling really bad dice – and it seems that your opponent will always also choose that moment to get really hot with the dice?).  The Polish fighter even shot down one of the German fighters.

To add insult to injury, the attacks on Denmark and Norway both bounced as well. He hit Denmark with 2 infantry and a fighter. Everything missed on round one, and the fighter hit on round two. Unfortunately, Denmark hit in both rounds so Germany couldn’t occupy Denmark. The exact same thing happened with Norway – Peter missed completely on the first round and hit on the second round – but I hit both times and he had no ground unit left to occupy Norway. Norway joins the Allies.

Remember how I said it might have been better to just reset the pieces and start over?

On turn two he hit Belgium. His paratrooper missed his roll to negate the river penalty, so all he had was half of his infantry and aircraft on the first round. He only got one hit on his attack versus three hits for the Belgians, who then retreated the remaining 4 INF and 1 ART into Northern France. Peter also strategically redeployed a bunch of Italian INF into Bardia to threaten the British, and occupied Denmark. The first two turns I didn’t do much more than just build in France and sent over the BEF to prepare for the usual carnage in France. However, I did manage to roll ones with my destroyers and sink both U-boats in the Atlantic.

Remember how I said it might have been better to just reset the pieces and start over?

On turn three, Peter’s attack into Northern France didn’t go too well. He again rolled poorly and I rolled about average – casualties were about dead even if I recall. The big thing is that I had two AT guns and they both hit, whittling down his armor a bit. On my turn, I took a gamble. There wasn’t much in Belgium, so I decided to make an amphibious attack into Belgium as well as counter-attack into Northern France. My reasoning was that if I could take Belgium, I might have a chance to eliminate his forces in Northern France. For the first time in the game, Peter rolled very well and I didn’t do so good. Bottom line was that he repelled my invasion – we both eliminated all of each other’s ground forces so even though I cleared Belgium I had nothing to occupy Belgium. So close… This wound up being a big factor because I rolled very well in the attack into Northern France and inflicted heavy casualties, forcing Peter to retreat back into Belgium with 3 ARM (all that survived).

In Summer 1940 I liberated Belgium and continued to build in France. I also redeployed 3 INF to Egypt to bolster my defenses against Italy, and sent the bulk of the British fleet to the Med to the sea zone with the Italian convoy.

In Fall 1940 Peter took back Belgium, and Italy declared war on the Western Allies, and attacked Southern France. Seeing how things had gone so far, you can probably guess what happened next. Yep – Italy bounced off in their attack. He looked at attacking in Egypt, but only had 5 INF and a FTR to go against 4 British INF, and thought it was too risky. This also brings up a rule question that I’ll raise at the end of this post.

I think this was also the turn in which he went into Yugoslavia – and he lost here, too. This is one move he made that I don’t think was a good idea. The other setbacks (other than being overconfident with Poland) were as much due to bad die rolls as anything else. Yugoslavia, though, was at this stage a side show, and he really couldn’t afford to be diverting units there when things were going so badly in France. In the Allied half of the turn, I did something I had never done before – France made an amphibious invasion of Sicily, and won.

In Winter 1940-41 Peter tried to go into eastern France and bounced. Italy attacked Sicily and took it back, but was repulsed in his attack into southern France – really bad, since he lost all his ground units and thus had to place his builds in NW Italy to defend against a possible counterattack. In my half of the turn, even though I was holding France I had really been bled down, and so all I did was build. I did make an amphibious assault into NW Italy with Britain (I had redeployed 6 INF to Gibraltar the turn before) and took it with the loss of 1 INF. I also went after the Italian navy. He had air superiority, but I had 4 battleships so I felt like I could weather the storm. We both had 3 fighters, and both had one go air-to-air and the other two bypass to go to after each other’s ships. Both air-to-air fighters shot each other down. He had a Stuka and a bomber to go with his two fighters; I had a fighter and a naval fighter. We each lined up our targets and made our AA fire.

Remember how I said it might have been better to just reset the pieces and start over?

Have you ever experienced a moment in a wargame when you actually hope your opponent will roll well, or you will roll poorly, just so there will still be some challenge in a game?

I didn’t mean to do it. I mean it – I really didn’t mean to do it. But sometimes the dice just won’t cooperate.

Against his two aircraft going against the Rodney, I rolled snake eyes on my AA roll.

Needless to say, Peter was not impressed. We both managed to score one hit each with our aircraft, and then my battleships and cruiser proceeded to sink the Italian fleet except for one transport. I elected not to continue another round and risk letting his planes get at my ships again (although the way the dice were going, perhaps I should have). At any rate, the transport was useless – all the sea zones in the Med except the ones adjacent to Italy were British controlled, and Italy had no combat ships left, so the transport wasn’t going to be able to do anything.

In Spring 1941 Peter took Northern France; in my half of the turn I took it back. He also tried to push Britain out of Italy, and failed. I wasn’t able to do much, though, because he did bleed me down to two INF, and he had enough aircraft in Italy to prevent an amphibious assault (we use the rule from the forum that allows aircraft to react to a sea zone from which you’re making an amphibious assault).

In Summer 1941, Peter pulled a cute little trick and amphibiously landed two infantry in Brittany – I attacked and pushed him back out. So far so good – 8 turns in and France hasn’t had to make a surrender roll yet. Italy, meanwhile, passed their roll (and would succeed with every roll, as it turned out).

In Fall 1941, it finally happened – the die rolls caught up with me and Peter got hot. He was able to take eastern France (losing 10 infantry), and then mech’d into Paris with 4 or 5 armor and 6 panzer grenadiers to knock France out of the game. All remaining French ships were scuttled. In my half of the turn, I pulled my remaining BEF forces (about 5 INF, 3 ARM, 1 ART, 2 AT) into Brittany and reinforced there from England. At this point it was a little after 10:00 and we called it.

Analysis

Usually we pick up the next week and continue the game from that point – this time I’m just going to reset it and we’ll start clean next week. At this point Germany’s position is hopeless. Peter has to decide whether to attack into Brittany before the British forces there get too strong, If he does, he doesn’t have any INF there to absorb losses which means losing panzer grenadiers and armor; if he doesn’t I’ll just keep landing troops there every turn. He also has to occupy the rest of France if he wants the income.

In the east – well, again, hopeless. Russia is growing. They’re not at tension level one yet - they have 49 points going into this turn though (I drew some VERY poor cards), so they will be at tension level one at the end of the turn. Needless to say, though, Germany will never be able to make up the gap in units in time to be able to attack Russia and probably won’t even be able to build up a credible defense for the Russian attack. On top of that, Russia has troops in Warsaw and Poznan, putting East Prussia in a very untenable spot.

Italy, too, is hopeless. All of North Africa is out of supply with no possibility of ever getting back in supply, and with NW Italy in British hands Italy is only building with 5 or 6 points (I don’t remember exactly which).

I haven’t talked about the Pacific, but there isn’t much to tell – everything there is fairly ordinary. Japan has a factory on the board, and placed a CV and a CVL, and is in good position in China. The US is at tension level one and is holding 36 points worth of cards toward level two. They place 2 factories this turn, and so will draw three cards at the end of the turn so have a good chance to go to tension level two this turn.

In my view, Peter overall didn’t play all that bad a game. He made the mistake of going too light into Poland and it cost him big. He has always gone a little on the light side – this time he cut it too close and it burned him. I can’t fault his attacks into France – they were fairly orthodox – he just had the bad luck to roll poorly and I rolled average or above average. After bouncing off of France I can’t really criticize much of what he did (with the exception of Yugoslavia – see my earlier comment). He pretty much had to react to events after that. I could go either way on him bringing Italy in. He wasn’t really strong enough to be able to adequately protect the Med and his forces in North Africa; on the other hand, bringing them in did cause me to commit the British fleet to the Med, which meant I wasn’t using it to harass him in the Channel & North Sea.

Now to the rule issues that came up.

First, if Germany doesn’t take all of Poland and they go to the Soviet Union, how does this affect the border garrison requirements for the SU? Does the requirement to have 5 ground units and 1 aircraft in every territory adjacent to Poland and East Prussia apply to the Polish Territories as well? This would require the SU to be penalized for Germany’s failure so that doesn’t seem right. However, I can see where the garrison rule might be interpreted that way.

Secondly, I have a question about supply related to the situation in our game. I had ships moving around a lot in the Med before Italy came into the war, and at the beginning of the turn Italy came in their North Africa territories were out of supply (they had been put out of supply the turn before. Should they be considered out of supply for the turn in which they declare war? We played it that they were indeed out of supply.

Third, when Germany attacks Belgium, can allied aircraft react to fly defensive air support for the Belgians? We have been playing that they cannot, as their flying to interdict German aircraft would be a violation of Belgian neutrality.

165
Game Design / Re: Minors and Supply
« on: December 19, 2007, 02:02:23 AM »
I think it might be easier to just say that minors are always in supply in their own country? 
Ah, it's nice to be un-banned... ;D

I second that emotion! :-*

Craig
Oh? Did you get banned too?

I admire your confidence in your smack talk by the way. I gave that up a long time ago. All too often after I talked smack the dice seemed to conspire against me to make sure I remained properly humble.  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14