Confirmed Details???

[shermantank]

@Romulus:

First turn openings are restricted to few options. However this not means that Classic or Revised are scripted. Here we have TWO setup and then two set of opening moves. I think this is more better.

I agree wholeheartly. This will make the game more interesting and unpredictable to be certain.

[Romulus]

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

[squirecam]

I think folk should take a step back on balance.

Remember, there are 2 scenarios.

The 1942 scenario should be what you “expect” to see in Revised and Classic. Japan having certain gains, but not having as much units due to losses.

The 1941 scenario grants the axis a “what if”. Can Japan gain more/lose less than at the start of 1942? Can germany do better in its Barbarossa assault?

So the Axis can do better or worse depending upon dice outcomes and tactical choices.

If you dont want to be “railroaded”, then start in 42 like usual.

[Guest]

I don’t know, I am a bit less excited about the 1941 scenario… it looks like all the 1941 scenario does is give you the opportunity to put yourself into the 1942 scenario (since, as said, there are many must-take actions).  Hence, it adds gameplay length, for no necessary reason.

(Plus, 1942 has been the A&A World start for so long… I can’t imagine it any other way!  :-P)

[Imperious Leader]

1941 must be better because you decide how to attack the Soviets. I don’t like the 1942 when your already invested in SU and would at least like to know how it happened. The Soviets have no air power and no offensive punch. The G1 attacks would have little counter with a bunch of crap thrown at it.

[Romulus]

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Thanks for the clarification! I have misunderstood the term “hits”.

[axis_roll]

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Obviously I can not tell for sure since I haven’t played the game, but this really seems to make SBR’s much more powerful, especially if bombers now only cost $13 and Germanys base income is $10 less.  And I am not sure I want to get involved in a game whose outcome depends on how well you can roll “1”'s to keep the bombers off you.

[squirecam]

Your CAP would defend at 2 though.

[Guest]

@axis_roll:

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Obviously I can not tell for sure since I haven’t played the game, but this really seems to make SBR’s much more powerful, especially if bombers now only cost $13 and Germanys base income is $10 less.  And I am not sure I want to get involved in a game whose outcome depends on how well you can roll “1”'s to keep the bombers off you.

Well, if it makes it worse for you… the winners at GenCon say they dominated because US just shipped bombers to Germany…  :x

I dunno, I might just try out Enhanced if this game isn’t balanced  :-D until of course an AA50 Enhanced is made!

[shermantank]

I like the Strategic Bombing Rule Larry made for the Anniversary. It makes the bombing much more realistic than before. Do you lose IPC’s AND lose production at your factory or just the second option?

[Guest]

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.

Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed.  The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production.  Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5.  If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170.  Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use.  Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US.  Have to give that some thought.

[variant]

@timerover51:

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.

Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed.  The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production.  Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5.  If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170.  Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use.  Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US.  Have to give that some thought.

Good luck finding someone to play Axis.

[Imperious Leader]

He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.

[axis_roll]

@shermantank:

I like the Strategic Bombing Rule Larry made for the Anniversary. It makes the bombing much more realistic than before. Do you lose IPC’s AND lose production at your factory or just the second option?

That’s funny… you like the rule but don’t know the details  :roll:  :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Imperious Leader]

LMFAO!!!

yea thats kinda funny actually. :-D

[Guest]

@Imperious:

He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.

I take it Imperious Leader, that you would have preferred having the Axis win WW2?  If that had happened, I likely would not be alive now.  Question is, if the Axis had one, how many of you Axis players would be? And you are correct, I have no problems whatsoever with the Axis loosing 100% of the time.  By the way, when is the last time you read a good summary of either the German or Japanese war crimes trials?  For the Japanese especially, I would recomment a very strong stomach.

The game has to be heavily biased against the Allies for the Axis players to have a chance at winning.  It has to have that or it will not sell.  I fully understand that.  That does not mean that I have to play it as given.  I am not asking any of you to play with any of my modifications.  I am just making sure that everyone is aware how much bias is built into the game.

As for students playing the game, I will discuss that with my co-teacher.  Given the time that we have to work with, I am not sure if we will use A&A50 or not.  If we do, the Italian player will definitely have the option of switching sides, without being conquered first, with his equipement being supplied by Lend-Lease.  I will also need to thoroughly review the naval force relationships in the game.  In both Classic and Revised, they are heavily biased against the US and the UK.  Being a naval historian, I have never been thrilled with that.

[Imperious Leader]

I take it Imperious Leader, that you would have preferred having the Axis win WW2?

Not at all. I wanted them to win WW1 actually because France started that war and because they won they got to label Germany the key nation that started the war.

I would like the war to contain the realistic elements that were possible, which allows for different outcomes because the war frankly was Germany to lose before 1942 and they just threw away their chances. The economics were enough in the early period to allow it to result in axis victory on all fronts and fortunately that didn’t happen, but History taught in this way is a failure to learn from if you can’t or wont be allowed to see how it could have been lost and if it was to be lost by students playing a simulation would learn alot more if allowed to see how it would have changed the world if the allies failed to stop the axis powers. All simulations are designed to not only portray the events, but the possibilities as well and this game is no exception.

By the way, when is the last time you read a good summary of either the German or Japanese war crimes trials?

Those were in the chapter just before the one about 20 million Russians dying because of Stalin, the one about all the Chinese who died at the hands of Mao Ze dong’s communists and before the Japanese internment camps in California. and the fire bombing of Dresden and tokyo and the chapter about the Atomic bombs dropping on people teice.

All sides committed horror and a life is a life equal to any other in value. You might as well said something about the war dead.

[Krupp Steel]

Excellent reply IL,both sides commited attrocities.I hate seeing all Axis powers portrayed as evil minions.

[Guest]

I agree with respect to Stalin, but short of declaring war on the USSR, there was not a lot the US or UK could do.  Based on my research at the US National Archives, a figure of 50 million Chinese killed by the Japanese Army appears reasonable. Note, these killing were filmed and shown in theater throughout Japanese to demonstrate Japanese dominance.

As for the Japanese internment camps, again, based on research in the Archives with respect to communication intercepts, I find some justification for those.  The Japanese on the Hawaiian Islands were running a pretty good intelligence collection effort throughout the war, and passing the information to Japan through the South American naval attachees, the Argentine, Chilean, and Peruvian in particular.  The Chilean Naval Minister received a payoff from the Japanese in the form of $50,000 dollars in gold for one item, which he pocketed the money for and then never did.

Dresden should not have been attacked, I will concede that.  As for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the firebombing, I have no problems whatsoever.  The Japanese got precisely what they deserved.

As for Imperious Leader’s comment on the French starting WW1, what bizarre history have you been studying?

[squirecam]

@timerover51:

@Imperious:

He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.

I take it Imperious Leader, that you would have preferred having the Axis win WW2?  If that had happened, I likely would not be alive now.  Question is, if the Axis had one, how many of you Axis players would be? And you are correct, I have no problems whatsoever with the Axis loosing 100% of the time.  By the way, when is the last time you read a good summary of either the German or Japanese war crimes trials?  For the Japanese especially, I would recomment a very strong stomach.

Can we stop with the “closet nazi” trashing please. People who like ww2 games and like to play axis countries are not closet nazis nor do they hate jews or anything of the sort.

Its rather offensive and does nothing to further discussion of Larry’s game.