Global 1940 Cold War goes Hot Scenario

[valtteri771]

Is this balanced at least a little bit? Why USSR controls Finland?

[dannyboy2016]

@valtteri771:

Is this balanced at least a little bit? Why USSR controls Finland?

Yes.
There are two scenarios. One is a 1945 start. While the USSR didn’t occupy Helsinki it did have control of Petsamo and and island base (which’s name escapes me). The idea is that, in the event of WW3 in 1945, the USSR would be able to seize Finland as quickly as it did the baltic states or East Poland.

The second scenario which is in a rar file a page or two back, covers the 1960s era. Finland is a neutral country in it.

[valtteri771]

@dannyboy2016:

@valtteri771:

Is this balanced at least a little bit? Why USSR controls Finland?

Yes.
There are two scenarios. One is a 1945 start. While the USSR didn’t occupy Helsinki it did have control of Petsamo and and island base (which’s name escapes me). The idea is that, in the event of WW3 in 1945, the USSR would be able to seize Finland as quickly as it did the baltic states or East Poland.

The second scenario which is in a rar file a page or two back, covers the 1960s era. Finland is a neutral country in it.

Okhay I might try the 1960 scenario

[kdfsjljklgjfg]

Started a scenario with my friend, and we’ve taken a break after the 5th Soviet turn. So far, here is what I’ve found about the variant:

Either I found an exploit that you might need to alter the rules to fix, or I missed something in the rules, but basically I built 10 tanks for Colombia, it joined the Soviet bloc, and then with the Main Battle Tanks tech, I was able to blitz into Central US that turn, with East and West US empty because the US player was putting all of his money into diplomacy influencing.

Except if I wanted to, I could have waited a turn, saved my turn 1 cash, and threw like 40 tanks into Colombia, and with the US being only able to put 12 men each in East and West, could capture Washington DC before the war ever really gets too into it, unless the US constantly keeps 30-50 men garrisons in their territories.

Even beyond the area of capturing territory, neutral nations can essentially become military supercomplexes that allow you to rapidly deploy your entire income, if you should so choose, on the other end of the planet.

So either I missed something, or you should probably put in an abortive rule to prevent such a scenario, like a recently acquired neutral is inactive for at least a turn after it’s fully influenced to one side, or a cap on the amount of units you can give to a neutral per turn.

Also, tanks seem a bit overpowered. Maybe their base cost should be raised? A 2-hit land unit for 5 ipc’s (every country has that tech except for PRC at the start) is ridiculous, especially with the incomes that can happen in this variant. The Soviets start off being able to produce 2-hit 4-4-3 units for 5 ipc’s, and is only a step away from giving them 2 dice. Is there really any reason to build any other unit? Sloped armor should be a higher level tech, or the techs should be moved around so that there are less tank boosts.

Having said that, it’s still a very enjoyable variant and it adds a lot of new thinking to the game that makes it fresher, but without making it a complex, entirely new game.

[dannyboy2016]

Thank you for the feedback.

Right now I’m considering the following rules for neutrals.

1.Once a country turns pro allies or pro communist, your side still has to move a unit in during non combat to seize control of the territory.

2.Each faction is limited to buying 1 unit per ipc value of the country per turn. So the Soviets/Warsaw pact could only buy 2 units for Spain and the allies could only buy 2 units for spain (unless its ipc value has been bought up).

I will look into the tank techs further. My initial thoughts for revising the tank techs are as follows

1.Sloped Armor just keeps tanks from being hit during the first cycle of combat (unless the opponent has tank destroyers)

2.Heavy Tanks now cost 10 ipcs.  They may no longer blitz. Automated assembly lines just reduce the cost of tanks by 1 ipc. They could be represented by a different piece if people have one, so they could still build regular tanks.

3.Main Battle tanks- moved to the final tech in that tech tree.

I’m interested in further suggestions.

[kdfsjljklgjfg]

Will Main Battle Tanks be 10 ipc’s too? Heavy Tanks aren’t too bad if the Sloped Armor is reworked like that, but MBT’s are still almost land battleships.

Also, a thought my friend and I had was that neutrals are treated as if you’re building on a minor complex, so 4 units. You could make 4 battleships for 80 ipc’s of influence in one big boost if you want, but you can’t just toss an army in there.

I’m not too fond of making it required to put a land unit there to claim them though. That gives much less reason for the Soviets to influence South America or sub-saharan Africa, as opposed to trying to open a new front, and essentially certain nations that should be easily communist, like Cuba, are instead a waste of money because you can never reap the benefits.

[Noll]

dannyboy, I really like your idea of setting this cold war/ww3 scenario and I might try it, however I think some rules are just too much for a “simple” game like A&A.

What I’d like to see (and I might employ) is:

no tech. Just regular A&A G40 stuffs.

The Neutral thingy:

No buy stuffs for neutrals. Every Diplomatic turn Russia and USA can spend IPCs to improve their influence over a neutral.
Every neutral start with a decent setup.

You spend 2 IPCs to raise your influence over a particular neutral by 1.
You can’t spend more than 20 IPCs/round this way.
When a Neutral has 10 influence point, you gain control of it.

[empireman]

Ok, Has anyone played this game variant yet?

[kdfsjljklgjfg]

@empireman:

Ok, Has anyone played this game variant yet?

6 turns in with a friend who isn’t available often, so we’ll be picking it back up in another week.

[empireman]

@kdfsjljklgjfg:

Will Main Battle Tanks be 10 ipc’s too?

Main battle tanks should cost 9 or 10 ipcs

[Ghost One]

what pieces do you recommend to use for each country :?

[Msyjsmora]

Me and a few friends are going to play a game of the 1946 scenario and I am wondering how building/storing nukes works.

[Ghost One]

where do you find the 1946 scenario i can only find the 1960’s one?

[MacMan131]

I was wondering what would you sagest using for the railroads, reactors, research facility and nuke? Also can someone pot up an image of the game board set up for the 1960 scenario?

[kdfsjljklgjfg]

@Ghost:

what pieces do you recommend to use for each country :?

I’ve used Germany for NATO, Japan for Warsaw Pact, Japan for SEATO, US and USSR are normal.

The rest is used for populating the various neutrals, although if we played with China as a nation instead of a neutral, we’d probably use UK for SEATO and Japan for China.

[Msyjsmora]

@Ghost:

where do you find the 1946 scenario i can only find the 1960’s one?

The 1946 scenario is in the beginning of this forum (first 4 or so pages) it is a bit jumbled up so you have to read most of it to get the full rule set.

[Ghost One]

Thank you Msyjsmor and kdfsjljklgjfg  :-)
i just got my basement back from a big project and will hopefully be playing the 1946 scenario soon.

how does the set up work for netral china it doesn’t say where to put the arty and MI and tanks

[empireman]

@Ghost:

what pieces do you recommend to use for each country :?

What I use:

NATO- France
Warsaw- Germany
USSR- Russia
USA- USA
SEATO- UK
China- Japan

Neutrals- ANZAC-Pro West  Italy-Pro East

[Ghost One]

thanks i didn’t think France would have enough pieces.  :-)

[Ghost One]

I tried setting the game up the other night and i got less than half way through the USSR setup before i ran out of chips. I know the cold war was an arms race and there would have been these many units but I think the setup needs to be reduced on a ratio so there is enough room on the board and enough chips to set it up. but i really like the way its looking.