@SS-GEN
“Europe 1999 is not a very balanced game, but …”
Rules for linking AA Europe and Pacific
-
@Craig:
Check here for more info:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=1653&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Craig
Thanks for the link…some more boards for me to lurk through. :-)
I’ll try to answer them.
1. Can Chinese units enter Russian territory? Could a Chinese attack theoretically be made on German assets if the units made it that far? Can Chinese infantry be converted by the Russians??
I don’t see anything prohibiting Chinese units from moving into Soviet territory or attacking German units, but the USSR cannot convert Chinese units, since there was no Lend-Lease agreement between the two countries.
Works for me.
2. Can Japan and Russia attack each others units or occupy each others territories?
Yes.
What about that piece of the Sov Union on the Pacific board? Does it remain empty and valueless??
3. Do the new connecting land territories for the US and USSR contain additional income for those nations?
No.
Whew…good.
4. There seems to be no effect on surrender dice if the Chinese capital is taken. This is correct?
The only effect is the income of the territory and control of its IC.
Would that be considered US income?
5. I wanted to verify…all convoy income from the Europe board for the UK must be spent on the European theater on turn 1? Convoy income may then be shared between theatres on each subsequent turn?
Yes.
Does that work both ways? Would that mean that Pacific convoy income is restricted to the Pacific for turn one? Or can it be given to the Europe theatre from the beginning??
6. As I read it, a nation that has it’s capital occupied and has no other IC still collects income??
Yes.
God forbid you let an enemy regain a capital then…a nice chunk of saved money might drag you from deaths door.
Still…works for me. :-)
…one last question.
US
Each turn taken (TURN# – 2)
US under Axis control 8
Hawaii under Axis control 2
Axis is getting 5+ Oil Money 1
UK has surrendered 3
Russia has surrendered 2
Every 7 IPCs of Convoys in Axis control 1One Axis power surrendered -3
US was attacked by Axis during Turn 1 -2
Every 5 IPCs of Axis territory controlled -1I’m taking that to mean that the US has to roll 1 surrender die on turn one, 2 dice on turn two, 3 dice on turn three, etc. (provided a negative modifier hasn’t nullified the dice)…
…am I correct there?
-
2. Can Japan and Russia attack each others units or occupy each others territories?
Yes.
What about that piece of the Sov Union on the Pacific board? Does it remain empty and valueless??
Yes.
4. There seems to be no effect on surrender dice if the Chinese capital is taken. This is correct?
The only effect is the income of the territory and control of its IC.
Would that be considered US income?
No. It only provides income to an Axis power if it’s taken, otherwise it’s Chinese and only provides an infantry unit.
5. I wanted to verify…all convoy income from the Europe board for the UK must be spent on the European theater on turn 1? Convoy income may then be shared between theatres on each subsequent turn?
Yes.
Does that work both ways? Would that mean that Pacific convoy income is restricted to the Pacific for turn one? Or can it be given to the Europe theatre from the beginning??
It works both ways.
US
Each turn taken (TURN# – 2)
US under Axis control 8
Hawaii under Axis control 2
Axis is getting 5+ Oil Money 1
UK has surrendered 3
Russia has surrendered 2
Every 7 IPCs of Convoys in Axis control 1One Axis power surrendered -3
US was attacked by Axis during Turn 1 -2
Every 5 IPCs of Axis territory controlled -1I’m taking that to mean that the US has to roll 1 surrender die on turn one, 2 dice on turn two, 3 dice on turn three, etc. (provided a negative modifier hasn’t nullified the dice)…
…am I correct there?
No. It’s turn number minus two. Zero on turns one and two, one die on turn three, and so on.
-
Thanks again for the info…I’ll be sure to poke my head back in this thread if any new questions come up. :-)
-
I am under the impression that the UK Mediterranian bonus troops cannot be placed in Egypt/Palestine/Syria as these are not “British” territories, but Middle-Eastern territoies.
Is this correct?
-
That’s a good question. I’d be inclined to say that they can be placed in Middle East territories, simply because otherwise they’ll do nothing but bulk up Gibraltar, Cyprus and Malta. That doesn’t give Germany much incentive to take these territories out. In contrast, it seems that placing them in the Middle East would increase the action in that part of the board. However, I’m not 100% sure about this. What do you think?
-
That’s a good question. I’d be inclined to say that they can be placed in Middle East territories, simply because otherwise they’ll do nothing but bulk up Gibraltar, Cyprus and Malta. That doesn’t give Germany much incentive to take these territories out. In contrast, it seems that placing them in the Middle East would increase the action in that part of the board. However, I’m not 100% sure about this. What do you think?
OK, well my FTF group is still playing our first Europe/Pacific game, and I’m the Axis, so my viewpoint is neither complete, nor unbiased, but…
…the rules allow for placement in territories “under British control”, but the Middle Eastern territories are not under British control. Technically, even if Germany takes them, they are still not under German control, as the IPCs earned come from Allied pools, and not the territories in and of themselves.
The Europe rulebook lists the UK and ME territories seperately, to the point of making the territories different colors. If the only unit in Karelia is a lone British Inf, does that mean Karelia is “under British control”? Why should the ME be different?
There is no need to worry about stacks of useless men on the Med territories, because once Morroco, or Libya, or Vichy, or Italy is taken and held (which is a near certainty after a few rounds unless the Allies are complete fools) the men can be placed there.
British transports could also make use of the stacked men from early rounds for Mediterranian landings once the German threat to Allied ships has been minimized/neutralized. Also, the Fig in Malta must still be dealt with, or it will be sent to help defend African territories where subsequent bonus Inf will be placed. Germany not only has incentive to try and eliminate this bonus, it MUST, or the game is quickly lost. This of course, means that every dollar spent in the Med is a dollar less to press on Moscow or defend Berlin.
That might be a little more historically accurate ( :-P ), but it makes for a game that isn’t much fun to play.
Also…the UK gets three Inf (9 IPCs) per turn for three little territories, the SAME value as UK and Canada combined. Hardly realistic, nor historically accurate.
In my game, with their $18 IPCs, the Allies added a mere two Inf to Malta (spreading the rest of the IPCs as Inf elsewhere). Despite adding a second transport to the Med fleet with my own bonus IPCs, the attack on Malta failed, and my fleet was sunk on the subsequent UK turn by 2 DD, 1 Fig, 1 Bom, 1 Tran.
Now while the Malta battle went terribly for me in terms of dice, the Allies could have easily added more men to Malta without significantly weakening themselves anywhere else. Essentially, this UK special rule ensures Allied dominance of Africa/ME within two rounds, or perhaps three if Germany’s fleet manages to survive the inevitable UK2 attack. Regardless, it eventually leaves Germanys southern income wide open to Allied landings. It also forces Germany to use his bonus IPCs on a second Med transport, effectively ending any threat to Lenningrad on G1.
Also, these bonus Inf eliminate the need for Russia to send troops south to help secure the Middle East, which was an integral part of both stand-alone Europe games our FTF group played. Instead, the Russians get to make their own front stronger while their flank remains secure.
I can’t even get the Japs over to help now, because I have no German troops left in Africa to try and take Egypt and unblock the canal (and this is after only two rounds). I’d have to go the long way around via the Really South Atlantic and run into an Allied fleet before I finished the trip.
As the OOB rules go, Germany could afford to ignore the Med if it really wanted to. Now, with this rule, it is a requirement not only to dedicate significant resources to it, but those resources are almost certain to be a total waste in short order.
I am of the opinion that the UK Med Inf special rule is horribly broken…to the point that it nearly breaks the whole game. It certainly makes the Euopre theatre vastly different from the OOB setup, and not in a good way.
Perhaps the rule could be modified to provide fewer Inf, or eliminate the option to place in other territories, or be dependent upon the presence of UK naval vessels to recieve the bonus, but I think a different rule altogether would be less likely to throw off the game balance.
EDIT: That rant was longer than I anticipated…as you can see, I think the rule sucks. :lol:
-
You make some good points. I have no idea how rigorously these rules were playtested, or even if they were playtested at all. I myself have only played with them once.
Obviously the intent of this particular rule was to allow the Allies to reinforce the Mediterranean Theatre and promote more action there. Maybe instead allowing the UK to place a limited number of purchased infantry somewhere in the Middle East would help to do that without being overly powerful?
-
You make some good points. I have no idea how rigorously these rules were playtested, or even if they were playtested at all. I myself have only played with them once.
Obviously the intent of this particular rule was to allow the Allies to reinforce the Mediterranean Theatre and promote more action there. Maybe instead allowing the UK to place a limited number of purchased infantry somewhere in the Middle East would help to do that without being overly powerful?
My friends and I are thinking that recieving the men ought to be dependent upon having ships in the same sea-zone as the island…after all, how are those men getting from Cyprus to Morroco if there’s an Axis fleet in the way?? :-P
That way Britain is still earning 1-3 Inf, but has to dedicate IPCs to navy to keep the bonus. He also can’t stack all his initial bonus IPCs in Malta, because then Germany can simply ignore Malta and do Cyprus or Gibraltar. UK has to either make do with losing one of the islands early, or spread his bonus IPCs among all three islands and hope the one Germany chooses to attack can hold.
Either way, it would likely put the UK down an island after G1, possibly two, and make him work to earn those free inf back. It would also give Germany incentive to ignore Malta (which has no ship in it’s SZ) in favor of Cyprus or Gibraltar.
That way, even if Britain starts out hot, as he did in my current game, Germany at least has a chance to reduce the bonus (eliminating ships instead of taking islands), and Britain has to somewhat match Germanys investement to keep the bonus.
-
That’s an interesting concept. Let us know how it works out.
-
Hmmm, I am working on a set of rules to combine Pacific and Europe to use with the high school US history classes, and also maybe my summer gaming class.
With respect to additional British troops in the Mediterranean area, since the initial forces deployed in the Mid East by the UK came from India and Australia, if you are going to give the UK additional infantry units, why not have them start out in India and Australia, and require them to be moved to Egypt? Troops from India could be moved in a single turn but require a transport to move them from the India sea zone to the Red Sea zone. Troops from Australia would need two turns to get there, again via transport.
-
Hmmm, I am working on a set of rules to combine Pacific and Europe to use with the high school US history classes, and also maybe my summer gaming class.
With respect to additional British troops in the Mediterranean area, since the initial forces deployed in the Mid East by the UK came from India and Australia, if you are going to give the UK additional infantry units, why not have them start out in India and Australia, and require them to be moved to Egypt? Troops from India could be moved in a single turn but require a transport to move them from the India sea zone to the Red Sea zone. Troops from Australia would need two turns to get there, again via transport.
While I like the idea, I don’t think the deployment of the troops should be able to be cut off by Japanese action, unless of course the Japanese get a fleet into the Med.
I’m also thinking that an easy way to leave the British Bonus Infantry rule alone while keeping the game balanced would be to connect Iran to India, and allow for amphib assaults of Egypt via the Red Sea. That way Japan actually has the option of entering the theatre without having to go all the way around the freaking world. :-P
-
The solution for helping the Brits is the Med theater would be a starting IC in Egypt (limited Production - Inf, Art, Trp, DD)
Troops from india can be moved in through Iran
I think the idea of free units (if conditions are met is nice - though 1-3 inf for UK is worth more strategically than another Sub for Germany - IMHO)
-
I’m also thinking that an easy way to leave the British Bonus Infantry rule alone while keeping the game balanced would be to connect Iran to India, and allow for amphib assaults of Egypt via the Red Sea. That way Japan actually has the option of entering the theatre without having to go all the way around the freaking world. :-P
Yes, connecting the Red Sea interboard space to Egypt and India to Iran makes sense.
Suggested Topics
