If you do not agree, please detail how it would unbalance things. Becuase I just dont see it. With a complex in Egypt to be built and a free one in S. Africa, I see the English being able to force their way into the Med and establish dominance.
Hey Jen.. is this post to me?
Not in particular. The original premise of moving the turn order and the British fleet was, but this specific post is to the community at large.
Children already know that dragons exist!
Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed!
I'm sure he has a reason. I'd like to hear what he's thinking there. Putting Italy between the US and UK would give a better back and forth than what we have now with US/UK Italy/Germany going in blocks.Imperious leader wrote:Be careful. larry hates Italy before UK
Infrastructure wrote:Larry, push the magic button that makes everyone happy. It's that simple.
For weeks everybody ( I thought) was complaining about SBR not being conducted because it was not cost effective. And now you're telling me that these adjustments won't work unless you can choose what your shooting at and interceptors hitting bomber first. In any case Germany has two major ICs and probably will capture 3 minors in France. If the US can shut them down... they deserves to win.
Larry, not everyone has been complaining about SBR. I kinda like alpha+2 rules better - but not much. And the effectiveness of SBR is just fine, anyone who says different is jsut not doing the math. Bombers do 3.5 damage on average, statistically your going to do more damage to the enemy then you take thru bomber loss. So there is no “problem” with SBR.
You can do 3 runs and lose 3 bombers or 30 runs and lose none, but if you look at the damage you do and damage you take you get 17.5 damage per bomber you lose, 1d6+2 means your going to inflict 27.5 damage per bomber you lose, that’s better than 2:1 damage ratio WAY TO HIGH OF AN ROI there.
Can't argue with the math edfactor. It was because of this math that I designed the present SBR system. I want people to get back in the pool and conduct SBRs. To do that it seems that a +2 must be added to the system. I'm looking for a consensus (and I don't do that often) on this point. Thanks for your..."Leave it as it is" argument.
You might want to read this and try some of it out.
New Turn Order
DAVE... I'm changing this to Germany Soviet Union Japan US China UK Italy ANZAC France.
Hmmmm.....I have some concerns regarding this turn order. In the OOB, the UK was opening the Burma Road many times by taking Yunnan on their turn and then when China's turn comes, they get to buy artillery and don't even have to fight for Yunnan. From my experience, that makes Japan's life harder. Also, as other people are pointing out, you bring back the can-opener issue against Japan where by the UK or Anzac clears Japanese blockers and the US roars through.
Use 1d6+2 when conducting SBRS
Great!!! Seemed to work well in Alpha +.2 from my experience. It led to some limited bombing and I don't remember hearing too many complaints during the 6+ month Alpha +.2 run
Limiting built-in AA guns to 3 shots
I'm not good enough to have any great insight into this change other than it will bring all antiaircraft fire into alignment. Which, on the surface, I would rate as a good change. It helps bring continuity to the rules.
Some NO changes.
Removing UK Pac. DEI NO
I've only played one Alpha +3 game and it still ongoing. This was a moot point because I tried a J1 attack for the first time, so I don't have anything to add other than I read lots of talk of a UK/Anzac round 2 DOW so they could grab the bonuses. So, on the surface, it seems like a good change.
The UK & US NO for capturing France is removed and replaced with: The US (no longer also the UK) 5 IPCs if there is at least 3 US units in Normandy/Bordeaux or Holland/Belgium Question, would you want this to be calculated from the start of the US turn or end? I say this because if you make it at the end of the US turn, this is a really NO to achieve. If the US must begin its turn with three units already there, it means the beachhead must hold. This would most likely mean more of a commitment from the US.
New Victory Conditions
7 VCs on the Europe side which includes Moscow, or 8 without Moscow.
I haven't formed a firm opinion on this one (lack of experience), so I'll leave this up to you to decide....which I'm sure is reassuring to you, right?
Setup changes being considered
Brit bomber replaces a French Fighter not British one .
Personally, I like the French fighter. It helps to keep the Axis honest in some of their movements. Some games it makes to N. Africa to harass the Italians or Germany will land underdefended planes in Holland along with not attacking Normandy. My vote is to keep it.
Remove UK Normandy fighter
This I could live with. It gives the Germans a better shot at attacking France and Normandy without leaving the France battle too thin. Also, helps the Italians out if the Germans decide to not to attack Normandy.
Remove airbase from Malta.
Ok. I haven't found this too critical of an item. In the one game it did do anything, I parked some German planes on it and it detered the UK from taking Egypt back amphibiously from sea zone 81 because I could've sunk their boats.
Remove airbase from Gibraltar
This probably helps the Axis so that when the US comes and takes Gibraltar, the UK can't land three planes there to scramble with for defense. Of course, the UK could always land the three planes and still purchase an airbase, but then they aren't doing something else. I think I like this idea.
Adding 4th tank to Holland.
Adding 3rd tank to Southern Greater Germany.
Adding 3rd infantry to Norway
Collectively, I don't know if I would do all of this along with the deletion of the UK fighter in Normandy. It would seem to me that you would be giving the Germans too much a leg up on round one if did them all. Out of the three, the infantry would be the least effective because there is no obvious round one battle Germany would put them in use for.
Add airbase to Quebec
Yes, do it. Then UK could actually fly fighters and tacticals back and forth to the UK/N. America and the German subs would pay for parking so far away from home.
Remove one French tank from Normandy and replace it with an artillery unit. \
Keep the tank. If Germany leaves Holland empty, it allows the tank to hit Western Germany if it is not defended with at least token ground units. It makes Germany pay attention or else pay for poor choices on G1.
Removing Soviet BB and replacing it with a Cruiser (and NOOOOO.... this had nothing to do with IL's similar proposal)
I'm ok with this. The Soviet fleet is sacrificial after all.
Got it Dave - Thanks
I'll try to get to you on some of these.
If the Japanese attack any Soviet territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory, all Mongolian territories (Olgiy, Dzavhan, Tsagaan-Olom, Central Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, and Buyant-Uhaa) are placed under the control of the Soviet Union at the end of the Japanese Combat Move phase, in the same manner as though the Soviet Union had moved land units into a friendly neutral territory. These territories have Soviet control markers placed on them, and their standing army units are placed on the board and are controlled by the Soviet Union player from then on. This occurs regardless of the state of relations between the Soviet Union and Japan at the time of the attack, with one exception. If the Soviet Union attacks any Japanese-controlled territory bordering these Mongolian territories while Mongolia is still neutral, Mongolia will remain neutral and not ally itself with the Soviet Union.
The way I read this rule, Larry, is that Russia can be at war with Japan as long as it doesn't attack a bordering tt to mongolia. And the mongolian tt rule would still kick in. So, I have been declaring war on Japan and moving units into China to help defend. They don't attack Japan and Japan can't attack the Russian tts bordering without releasing the hordes.
I'm having trouble with what you wrote here... not sure I understand it. From what I think you said - yes. The Japanese can certainly attack the Russians in china, you understand that - right? This sounds like what happened in Vietnam.
Are we still on the time limit your proposed a month or so back for final revisions?
Somewhat... I have not received an official delivery date yet.
Malta has a Naval base?m7574 wrote:Wow Larry. I did not know the Germans to be so under-powered. I like that the extra armor units will help Germany crush France. But in this event I would like to see Russia get equal additions too. Tell me... why would I give one side more units and then do the same to the other? I have concluded that Germany needs a boost. More pressure has to placed on Russia for a more interesting game IMO.
If Normandy loses a UK ftr, and the UK has one less ftr to scramble G1, and Germany does not need any aircraft in the G1 blitzkrieg, can they now eliminate both BB's and the CA's in the North Sea/Channel? I say yes. Most likely - yes. Of course nothing is for sure with dice determining the outcomes.
USA's NO moved from France to Normandy/Low Countries is a good call. Frankly, it might be too easy. I'm keeping an eye on this one.
No airbase for Gibraltar? This eliminates the UK's ability to muster in sz92. If you make it undesirable for the UK to attack Italy on UK1, either by turn order or set up changes, what options have the UK got left? Too many to list.
I like that facilities have a max of 3 AA shots. Tactical AA's may support the IC, I assume? No.... That would in fact be a false assumption. I didn't say anything about that.
DEI NO removed for UK is fine too.
Malta airbase gone? Minor influence but makes malta about as insignificant as sicily now. Disagree... It still has a naval base.
New Airbase in Quebec is historical and functions to help the allies hunt down subs and get back to UK quickly. This one is probably over-due. Yeah... I agree.
It feels like we are over-reacting to the percieved allied advantage in G40. I don't think there's any "over-reactions" going on.
I assumed Germany got a boost in order to hit France harder. Improve their position before Barbarossa. They can already push Russia back to Moscow by turn 6-7 without any bumps.
OK, UK still would have options, just not any nearly as desirable as they once had.
consider that I have no agendas in this development. If one side or the other has an advantage a bid will most likely balance it. Under these proposals I would feel confident to win with the axis AT LEAST 90pct of the time, especialy with the 7CV & Moscow rule. I have always thought of myself as a better allied player. But maybe I'm a little behind the curve, I don't know.
Or maybe you're right on the mark. I'm trying these things and thus driving everybody crazy to test the waters. I want all the eyes I can get looking at all these things. I can't afford to make assumptions. I can afford to make waves (for the moment).
Ooh wow, SBR just got looking beefier.
Anyways I finished offthe last game left at end of turn two. THe game went about a dozen rounds as axis victory.
US went almost 100% pacific, only diverting income to put 6 bombers in ENgland by round 4 or 5. I found that even with 3-4 german interceptors the americans were only losing 1 bomber a turn. They got lucky, but even with 2 a turn its not irreplacable, you have them in england the folloing turn. Bombers were always a good investment in europe, and when the time is right, they can be used as wicked awesome landing support.
Anyways, Germany rushed the Soviets to the south with some italian support. Could not have been accomplished without the italians marching along side and the itlaians would have been unable to render support had their battleship in 97 not survived, they got lucky. I find 9 times out of ten that does not happen. Germans had strong pressence in the seas chocking UK for 8 for most of the game. US unable to divert German fleet as most money was spend pacific. WIth help of the UK/ANZAC and timely soviet invasion of north asia the allies blunted the japanese expansion. DEI fell into Allied hands but Japan was able to establish forward bases on land before US suicide assaulted Japan from a naval base in midway. THe resulting battle saw both fleets whiped and japan surviving with a single scrambled plane. With Minor ICs in FIC, Hong Kong, and Korea, Japan was able to supply enough ground forces and rebuild their airforce enough to gain control of china and Soviet Far East. Japan however crippled was far from defeat as US attention was shifted to the atlantic to attempt to halt a Euro Axis win.
UK and US bombers were maxing damage on German ICs in Berlin, France, and Souther France so it was costing Germany a lot to repair and build. Even though Germany had a lot of money as by this time a major foothold was established in Russia it slowed down their advance as they could not just pump units into RUssia so fast. When Germany didn't repair US whiped their fleet and gained control of the seas with a massive bomber rush. However it was too late to save France before egypt went down.
That is right, Egypt held to the end as the last VC to fall and it only fell with German involvement. Germany took control of southern france and built 2 transports and a destroyer in the med, allowing them to pump some troops into Africa. So as the game was. LOVE IT!
Main point of attention ------- Italy needs a couple transports just to have a good fight in the mediteranean. If Italy is whiped too easily the game becomes offset. But we already know this. The Med is the point where the scales tip because Italy is a beast of extremes. Yep... Italy slides to either one end of the scale or the other. I'd like to find a way to stop that. I think the answer lies in the UK Med setup.
Thanks for this interesting report. BTW... Your All-Japan was not an All-Japan. Frankly I don't see how it ever really can be. Interesting game.
Wasnt the change to bring America up to run before England to stop England from can-opening for them in the Pacific? If so, have you changed your mind on the necessity of that?
I was thinking, because Italy has very limited ability to effect the Pacific, by just moving Italy up to go after China you get all the benefits of a split up allied turn with only one downside: SZ 98. You can easily fix that by moving the British to SZ 81 and "bam" (As Emiril would say) the problem is fixed.
If you move the British fleet, then I like the Strategic Bomber change to England. If you don't move it, then the change only exasperates a very bad situation. To me anyway.
This is the problem, as I see it:
1) The allies have a ridiculously high number of turns in a row allowing them multiple attempts to clear the road for a strong attack.
1s) Moving Italy between USA/England stops that. Italy can now move to counter a can opener making it so that England can only can open for Australia.
2) The Italian fleet gets p0wned already. Adding a Strategic without blocking the English is only going to make it worse, not better. Adding ships to block the British means you have to buff the British else lose them in attack. Making Italy neutral seems anti-game philosophy.
2s) Move the British to SZ 98. Perhaps add complex in Egypt and remove from S. Africa.
3) SBR: The risk outweighs the reward. It is always better to go attack an infantry or two with your bomber than it is to conduct an SBR if all you can get is 1d6 dmg. (2 infantry = 6 dmg and you can bring cheap infantry yourself to soak bad luck.) In a major engagement it is WAY better to use the bomber instead of SBR with it.
3s) Strategic bombers only conduct SBR campaigns, roll 2d6 (best result) +2 dmg. Means the bomber will almost always be doing 5-7 dmg thus capping a minor complex or seriously dmging a major one. (Shutting down air/naval bases too.) It still requires the bombers to be dedicated and not used elsewhere, still can be protected with AA Guns and Interceptors, but now the reward is high enough to go home to the kitchen table and justify to your wife (in my case husband).
Children already know that dragons exist!
Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests