Messages

1

After action reports from first edition / Re: Last night's game - or - "Why you should respect Poland"

« on: December 24, 2007, 08:44:25 AM »

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....

Amen to that!!  The first time I ever tried to play Germany on my own, the dice gutted my Wehrmacht in Poland. We immediately reset the game, I got gutted even worse, but persisted on into an even worse disaster in France. So, we reset the game yet again and fired me and my dice as the German player, letting someone else take over (Vinny, as I remember, and whatever did become of him?).

Ugh!

dd

2

Introduction / Re: Introduction

« on: October 17, 2007, 02:30:48 AM »

>>For example, if oil were treated as a separate resource,
>>and you needed oil as a separate commodity to do certain
>> things (like move fleets),


>I really like this idea (with respect to oil especially). 
>But have not come up with a good and easy way to keep
>track of oil and spend oil points during a game...

Not to dis the idea, but my experience has been that multiple types of resources in a high-level strategic game are rarely worth the added bother. For example, I recently spent some significant learning & playing effort with a boardgame covering the entire Napoleonic period called Soldier Emperor (a pretty good game, I think) that had each land territory providing money and population/recruitment points yearly. I came to the conclusion they might just as well kept it money only. Having the two types of resources significantly added to all sorts of places where the rules were logically compelled to address the differences between the two and it just doubled the effort to add up production. I'll admit that for marketing or 'curb appeal' purposes multiple resource types may sound good. On the other hand, I don't doubt it will work out fine if Mark decides to go with some sort of extra resources, oil or whatever.

dd

3

General Discussion / ASW / convoy ideas

« on: September 12, 2007, 11:20:24 AM »

After (MANY!) games, it seems that the balance between German subs and British convoy defense seems to have a problem - not much of one, but just enough to give me pause to think about and discuss it here.

The possibility of the the Brits getting lucky with a few ASW hits early, or maybe not too early, but say while sub production is still being ramped up, tends to unduly discourage the Germans from pursuing an agressive sub production strategy.  I say this only after having observed many games.  Of course I've seen it go the other way where the Brits (usually me...) can't kill a sub for love or money. The system as it stands does average out game-to-game, but it seems to me that the game places an undue high risk to the Germans on even attempting a serious sub strategy.

Anyway, the above is just a complex way to say that I think the ASW die rolls need to be averaged out a bit better - keep the relative loss ratios the same, but increase the number of die rolls to make things more 'average'.

My thought is to basically cut sub and DD production costs in half, but double the probability of killing the subs and DD's. Subs would cost 2,2, DD's cost say 2,2,1, with subs doing 1D3 of convoy damage. Convoy-defending DD's kill subs on a 1-4, other defending ASW kill subs on a 1-3. Offensive attacks against subs hit on a 1-2.  In surface battles DD's hit on a 1, but only absorb 1/2 hit (ouch - I hate this last point). Maybe it might be better to have a sub-chaser unit, though I hate introducing yet a new unit type (maybe make it's cost a 2,2 or something and it has a zero surface attack ability?).

Anyway, I can't say I'm wild about this whole idea, but right now it's a huge risk for the Germans to consider persuing a strong sub strategy. A strong sub strategy requires building a good 8 to 12 subs at a minimum (I think).  The Brits getting a bit lucky on just a few early ASW die rolls puts a tremendous risk that the Germans cannot ameliorate over 'the long run' in that particular game, and which I think might be usefully addressed by averaging things out a bit better.

dd

4

After action reports from first edition / Re: Texas Game

« on: April 24, 2007, 06:35:20 AM »

Axis 3/41 Axis 4/41
Japanese take India, yet another crappy rolling fight for Brits.
Allies 3/41 The Chinese start an offensive.  No allied pics for 3/41

In the Far East Autumn 1941 pics (message #31, page 3), it looks like the Japanese attacked India using a strategic move or something, which if that is indeed what happened, FWIW, is not allowed. Not that I want to nit pick on rules or anything, but just thought I'd mention/ask about it.

Specifically,  #31 shows two pictures of India, the first photo (with an Autumn 1941 turn marker) shows two Jap ships adjacent to Calcutta and the bulk of the Jap fleet at Tokyo; there appear to be Jap troopships and DD's in the South China Sea, which is three move points from India - they have to move past Singapore to get to India. The very next photo (also with the Autumn 1941 turn marker) shows the entire Jap fleet along with the DDs/troopships having strategic moved adjacent to Calcutta and Japanese troops in Calcutta.  Seems like it should have taken a minimum of two turns to accomplish that move - one move for the distant ships to get in tactical range of Calcutta and the next move doing the actual tactical attack move into Calcutta. Or did I miss something?  Of course, come to think of it, the two Jap ships adjacent to Calcultta in the first photo would have prevented the Brits from strategic reinforcing Calcutta, so the Japs could have had the necessary time to do the strategic move followed by tactical attack movewithout the Brits reinforcing Calcutta.  However, both photos do show the turn marker as Autumn 1941, so it's a bit confusing.  Likely the turn marker just never got flipped or something.

Great photos - really enjoyed reviewing the game.

dd

5

After action reports from first edition / Re: the first Holland game...

« on: April 23, 2007, 05:26:14 AM »

I quite agree - a MOST impressive performance on BOTH sides for a first game.  The Allies clearly had a bit of a learning experience, but they do tend to be more difficult to master, given their need to play properly for the long-term. Of course, I have never seen the Axis suffer when both Sweden and Turkey trigger...  poor Russian player - my sincerest sympathy!

dd

6

After action reports from first edition / Re: U.S. National Championships (sort of)

« on: April 23, 2007, 04:30:35 AM »

Actually - My longest losing streak is 5 games. Can anyone beat that? 

Heck, in the Hartford group, last year alone I had five straight losses playing against whatever side Todd was on. And if my memory serves me, Todd and I played on the same side after that streak of five and we lost that one too, making it at least six in a row for me.  Sigh. 

dd

7

After action reports from first edition / Re: Feb 3rd Hartford Game (w/Pics)

« on: April 02, 2007, 07:55:46 AM »

Russian Spring 1942 followed by the German Summer offensive

It's hard to make sure, but in the German Eastern Front Spring '42 turn (photo #35), it looks like the Germans could have surrounded the big Russian stack down south. It looks like they could have dropped a paratrooper from the bend in the Dnepr to the province north of Stalingrad, and then sealed the pocket with mech moves (and which they almost did as it was). It looks like there's a paratrooper and bomber available from the German force in the Dnepr - hard to be sure from the photo. It doesn't appear there's any defending fighters to have stopped the move either. 

I'm probably missing something on the photo, but do the Eastern Front guys remember the situation?

dd

8

After action reports from first edition / Re: March 17th at Todd's Bunker

« on: April 02, 2007, 07:38:54 AM »

Well you weren't the only one in which the dice gods punished... All 8 of my fighters were shot down to only 2 US fighters. I would call that a bit above average...

Oh well 

That was ONE battle, and besides it was against Todd's dice.  If memory serves me, I went through FIVE straight battles in a row against the Italians, being kicked you-know-where. 

Maybe you and I should find a Dice Gods temple somewhere and start making sacrifices...

dd

9

After action reports from first edition / Re: March 17th at Todd's Bunker

« on: March 28, 2007, 04:31:51 AM »

I sent the following out via email after the game, but I think it merits reposting here.  The following will be one reason I'll always remember this particular game. Sigh.

dd

Great game guys - a real knockdown, drag out, stick it to the other side imbroglio! 

FWIW, I think I set a new Royal Navy accomplishment not likely to ever be equaled.  I managed to get all but one Royal Navy ship sunk, including the six new DD's I built, making for a total Royal Navy loss of 3xBB's, 3xCA's, 10xDD's against, if I remember correctly, Italian losses of 1xBB, 1xDD, and two transports (ignoring the drat French BB that deserted the Allied cause as not really an Italian loss) for a total of something like 195 British production points sunk to all of 39 Italian...

Tell why (again) I play this game...  dice!!#@?#@?#!! The Kreigsmarine was still completely intact, if I remember.  At least Gibraltar was never threatened.

Fun game!

10

After action reports from first edition / Re: Feb 3rd Hartford Game (w/Pics)

« on: February 06, 2007, 05:33:45 PM »

I like to make France more of a fight too - knock the Germans down a bit if you can in Spring - Summer 1940 to try and weaken them for Russia - I'm not sure why James did not - he invested quite a bit in ASW and an airforce as well as really beefed up the Brits in the Pacific prior to Japan going to war.  Maybe that was what was behind his strategy

What was behind my strategy was that I hadn't played Britain in six or eight months and couldn't remember how to play France... also, the early and heavy focus on ASW and air kind of cut into producing anything to help France. I always figure it's a goner anyway, though I'd expected the French to do more than they did, tho' viva la France for saving the British Eastern Med fleet!!!

Agreed - leaving France to fend for itself is probably not the best way to go, but it is a prejudice of mine to commit to convoy protection from the git-go even though it means a weaker France. Also, it was indeed my strategy to look long-term towards containment of the Japanese, and which mandated protecting British production.

dd

11

Game Design / Re: The problem of Italy

« on: September 26, 2006, 11:03:46 AM »

I think I am seeing another game balance issue with Italy being a tough nut to crack, what with the addition of airbases and plane range limitations that serve to limit the concentration of planes in the Med to attack or defend fleets. 

In particular, there seem to be many fewer planes that the Allies can now bring to bear to gang up on the Italian fleet. This means that surface power is more significant now (i.e., as air power effectiveness diminishes, surface power becomes more significant, relatively speaking).

In a straight-out naval surface battle, naval defense is favored over offense by a factor of three or four to one (in these rules, but certainly not in history - US Bureau of Ordance WWII estimate was 20 minutes for one ship to sink its opposite number at effective range). In the game, on the average, it takes four firing CAs to sink one enemy CA (four dice x (50% chance of a hit / die) = 2 hits). With fewer planes able to get fewer hits against the major surface units on average in a game now, surface fleets are just that much more survivable. 

This makes Italy even tougher to crack.

However, I still don't want to play Italy.  Even if Italy is a little tougher, it's still no fun being the littlest kid on the block.

dd

12

After action reports from first edition / Re: Detroit/southeast Michigan area (w / Pics)

« on: September 11, 2006, 06:31:48 AM »

The problem is the Axis are at the 40-41 VP level and will most likely take Kharkov on the Eastern Front.  With only a few units adjacent to that territory, liberation is unlikely.

We (the WA/USSR/China) are on the very edge and are not in a position to trade VPs.  The end is near. 

[snip]

Craig

I missed the photo showing the Japanese in Calcutta and the Germans holding the Persian oil fields... oops!

Puts a completely different complexion on the Russians managing to be in Romania...   

dd

13

After action reports from first edition / Re: Detroit/southeast Michigan area (w / Pics)

« on: September 07, 2006, 10:14:17 AM »

The Soviets don't look like they are doing too terribly.  So the Jerries are at the gates of Moscow, but that's all they have and not in force (or so it looks like).  With a solid Soviet hold on Romania, what's to complain about?

Nice heavy duty US support for Britain!  Way to go US!

What are the production levels like?

dd

14

After action reports from first edition / Re: Detroit/southeast Michigan area (w / Pics)

« on: September 06, 2006, 08:07:50 AM »

And it certainly looks like the Brit appreciates the importance of protecting those North Atlantic convoys...  no fool he.

dd

15

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Japanese/Chinese interaction

« on: September 06, 2006, 07:37:14 AM »

You's guys are damn fine rules lawyers - very impressive catch! 

dd