Global 1940 Alpha 2 - cash in all units and purchase House Rule

[BigBadBruce]

@BigBadBruce:

So here too you muted me and the post after me who pointed out you annonce yourself free for a new game, but refuse to carry on an ongoing game to avoid the lost?

Is it how you’ll rule your Tournament? If I see and point out incoherence of yours, you’ll just delete my poste secretly?
I wonder How long this post will last Jennifer. Or course, I get screen shots of all posts I guess you’ll delete.

Amazing how you use your Moderator priviledges… I thouth it was to remove unpolite and disgraceful post… but it seems we also have to speak like you to be allowed to post.

I recommend you make your accusations in private or to the more senior moderators.  Publically accusing a moderator is a good way to make a moderator displeased with you.  I have been down that road before and it ended up very badly for myself and for that moderator (who is no longer with us).  Personally, I’ve grown a very thick skin over the years and get let much of the accusations and slander roll off rather harmlessly, but it is not the wisest action to irritate a moderator when such irritation can be avoided.

As for your missing posts:

1)  You should ensure you get the confirmation screen after you post.  You can flag your posts so they return you to them after they have been submitted.  Perhaps (and I am not logged onto your machine, so I cannot say for certainty) your posts were lost in transit.

2)  You tend to come off rather hostile and inflamatory.  Perhaps one of the other moderators removed your post because they felt there was no redeeming qualities in it?  I have done this three times in the past to various other parties and emailed them with reasons why. (Although editing like I am doing can be more productive.)

3)  Perhaps you are experiencing an error with the system.  A few of our more established users have been having troubles with their posts as well.

Lastly, what I choose to do or not do on my own time is my business.  Our game was a test of MULTIPLE UNTRIED THEORIES which included, but is not limited too, Global40 Candian Shield, London Evactuation, American Capitol Warship Program, Japanese Turtle, Chinese Multi-Culturalism, etc, etc, etc.  It was not a “by the book” Japan-crush as described anywhere.  Further, I did offer you a rematch in the future when real life obligations are met and I have more time, so please don’t attempt word your statements in such a way as to insinuate that I am attempting to slight you.

I’m not sure who I’m answering to but here it is…

1. Not only I ensured to get confirmation but I used a different browser to make sure I get fresh “get” from server… I kinna know how it works. Besides, not only my post but someone else’s post also disapeared, in same thread… which was a “quote” from my post!

2. Hostile and inflamatory? First blood wasn’t my action, I only answered in same manner. Look at my posts. I never, ever, answered hostile to anyone else. If I get attacked, I answer, (newly) moderator or not.

3. Perhaps. I won’t insist, I rather put this behind and move on.

Oh! so It’s you Jenn… so I undsertand with last para. I clearly challenged you over your claim that Alpha2 was broken. I don’t see how you could have understand it otherwise. Not a good time to try anything else : it was specially to challenge your claim! OOB rules is (badly) broken, from day 1 I played this game, Axis never ever got a single chance to win. So I was very shock to have spent over 180$ for a broken game (I have almost all A&A boxes), I felt it was very poorly play tested. Alpha+2 was a salvation. I so love it and I will defend it against claims I feel not correct. I sure don’t want an alpha3 go back to OOB’s problem.

Anyway, back to our issue. As I answered you (not sure where), I’ll accept any challenge. But I felt played when you choose (so I understood anyway) to cancel the currect game + claiming you are winning (which I disagree) because you lack of time… but offer to start new games on 2 different threads. What would you have think?

Furthermore, you argue you lost only 1 game (not counting ours) over 40+ games… but, I get messages and I see threads where you lost. So, again, what would you think at my place?

All that being said. I put it behind and wont go back to this unless you do. I accept your challenge for a rematch, and we’ll play at the time and pace that fit you. You take over your shoulder to manage a Tournament and I’m very greatful for this. I know it’s time consuming and I appreciate you doing it for us (including me).

I think that UK cannot avoid a succesful Sea Lion by itself and I feel allies can’t win without London. If I’m proved wrong I’ll be honest and clearly admit my bad.

[Bischoffshof]

What he says is too. I saw both his and the other players post as well and they are both missing so it was no error of any sort it was clearly deleted by some moderator. And to thatonekid she clearly can moderate this page as evidenced by her edit of Bruces post.

[thatonekid]

well i find this all quite odd. it says at the top of the page that jen is not one of the 3 moderators

[thatonekid]

my advice to you BBB is to not get to steamed up about what others say. i mean it is the internet and people say dumb sh*t all the time. my advice to you jen is to accept defeat when it exists, or simply explain the instance, such as you were using theories. and dont abuse your power. tried to be of some service, and not take a side :)  :mrgreen:

[BigBadBruce]

Yep, I agree to both your advices. Let’s move on, some players are waiting for my turns and I’ll focus on those games to catch up in next days.

I also must say that I really enjoy this site as I was always quickly and kindly answered to my question, I had excellent games with great players and I faced tricks and tactics that both surprised me and learned from. My game stats do not reflect how tight games were and lucky I got in some games.

I look forward the tournament and to play more and more games, AAG40+ Alpha 2 rocks!  8-)

[BigBadBruce]

@taschuler:

I wanted to get some feedback on a house rule where players purchase all of their units and place as they wish prior to the start using the total IPC values from Alpha 2 setup, and still using all Alpha 2 rules and National Objectives.

RULES:

• All Industrial Complexes and Naval/Air Bases Remain and are not cashed in

• Additional Industrial Complexes and Naval/Air Bases may be purchased with the players cash, with the exception of China which may not build any of these

• Each territory with an IPC value of 2 thru 5 must have Infantry (Mechanized or regular) in a quantity of at least one less than the IPC value of the territory

• Territories with an IPC value higher than 6 must have at least 5 Infantry (see the United States mainland)

• There will be four placement turns prior to the first actual turn of the game. Each player purchases and places their units in reverse order of the normal turn order. France first, Italy second, etc.

• The Chinese player may only purchase (non-mechanized) Infantry and a single Fighter, but the Chinese player is not required to purchase a Fighter

• A maximum of 2 IPCs can be carried over to the next turn, with the exception of turn 4 when up to 5 IPCs may be saved for the players first actual turn in the game

• Players cannot place units in territories other than their own with the exception of Japanese controlled China, France and UK (London), ANZAC and UK (London or Calcutta). The UK player must keep his two sides separate and cannot share money or place units on the other side of the map.

CASH PER PLAYER PER TURN (in placement order):

• FRANCE (Total 132): 33 per turn

• ITALY (Total 223): 56 for the first three turns, 55 for turn four

• ANZAC (Total 91): 23 per turn, 22 for turn four

• UK (Calcutta) (Total 130): 33 for the first two turns, 32 for the last two turns

• UK (London) (Total 318): 80 for the first two turns, 79 for the last two turns

• China (Total 58): 15 for the first three turns, 13 for turn four

• USA (Total 278): 70 for the first two turns, 69 for the last two turns

• Japan (Total 570): 142 for the first two turns, 141 for the last two turns

• Russia (Total 248): 62 per turn

• Germany (Total 399): 100 for the first three turns, 99 for the last turn

Kinna introduce a Risk’s placement, I love it.
This sounds very interesting. I would allow Chian to build Art, as they have Burma road open. Also I would also gives NO that qualifies after last purhcase, ie. more money for first turn expense. I would try such game, in 1vs1 game.

[Jennifer]

NO’s dont kick in until you are at war, so none should apply right away.

[BigBadBruce]

@Cmdr:

NO’s dont kick in until you are at war, so none should apply right away.

True, but some are at war. So :
Germany would get #1 and #5
London would get #2
China would get #1

[Jennifer]

England might get #1 as well if Germany does not place a submarine in an appropriate sea zone.

[knp7765]

A couple more questions:
1 - I’m still unclear on Naval placement.  I understand that you can place ships in any SZ that borders one of your controlled territories.  What about placements in Sea Zones that don’t border your territories in the original setup:  EG British & French cruiser in SZ 112 which borders Norway, Denmark and W Germany - ALL German territories.  Is that no longer allowed in this new setup.  ALSO, the German submarines out in the middle of the Atlantic (SZ 103, 108, 117, 118 and 124).  Those sea zones are not adjacent to any territories.  Will that also no longer be allowed in the new setup?

2 - There seems to be collaberation allowed between France, UK and ANZAC.  Can France place units in the UK and visa-versa?  Can ANZAC place units in UK territories and visa-versa?  Is there a limit to how many “foreign” units that can be placed in each countries’ territories?

I’m looking forward to trying this out and I just want to get the rules clear first.

[Jennifer]

This was not an issue in the classic version, but I would say in this one those errant ships also could not be placed.  French ships can be in SZ 110 however, as it borders W. France.

[Bischoffshof]

Would it not be easier and perhaps more appropriate for you to be allowed to place any ships in any SZ adjacent to a land territory you control… Otherwise I feel like there will just be a huge stack vs. a huge stack and it will go to the dice. I feel like allowing people to place naval units adjacent to any of the territory they control will not only give variety to each game, but also allow players to place units in areas where they can allow for different strategies

[Jennifer]

Yes, that is what we were talking about.

The issue that was raised is the submarines that are scattered over the N. Atlantic and if we could replicate that in some way, unfortunately, I do not feel we can, unless we have a special rule that you can place up to 1 submarine in any sea zone that is NOT adjacent to the enemy.

[Bischoffshof]

Perhaps just allow Germany to place only submarines in Atlantic waters but only allow 1 per territory and up to 5. Germany is the only country to really use submarines in that way so historically its justified.

[knp7765]

Thanks for the clarifications Jennifer.
I think limiting all nations to placing ships only in sea zones that are adjacent to their territories makes more sense for this version of the game.  However, there are a few instances where placing ships may create an automatic combat situation, such as SZ 110 which is bordered by UK, France and Germany.  I don’t think there are very many spots like that though.  Plus, it would be kind of foolish for Germany to place ships there since England has the protection of the airbase.  I think I will go with only sea zones bordering your territories for placement.

I take it there is no limit to how many units France can put in United Kingdom, UK can put in France, or ANZAC and UK can place in each other’s territories?

[Jennifer]

SZ 110 is a weird one, you have British, French and German territories.  SZ 96 has Italian and British, as does SZ 76.  SZs 20 and 36 are British and Japanese.

We should probably assign sea zones on those instances?

SZ 96 and SZ 76 should be Italian, since they control 2 of the 3 bordering territories.  SZ 20 and 36 do not need to be assigned as England and Japan are not at war yet, so no matter what ships are placed there, combat won’t occur if Japan does not declare war on England (or England on Japan).

SZ 110 is a bit harder, perhaps we should state that no one can place units there?  England has plenty of other sea zones they can (And probably should use) and I’d like to avoid a situation where France is reinforcing England senselessly (France has 99 IPC, that’s 1 Infantry for Paris + 2 Loaded Carriers, 3 Destroyers that could stack defense for England in SZ 110 if allowed.)

[knp7765]

I think you have the right idea Jennifer.  Let’s make SZ 110 simply off limits for setup.  As for SZ 96 & SZ 76, they should be Italian.

As for SZ 20 and SZ 36, even though UK and Japan aren’t at war, I don’t like putting both side’s ships together.  It just feels weird to me.  I think that SZ 20 should definitely be given to Japan since they are in the process of invading China anyway.  SZ 36 actually borders Japanese and French territories, not British.  I don’t know if France would want to put a navy way out there, but I guess they should be given the option.  I would say give that one to France since it borders the larger French territory of French Indo-China and Hunnan is a small island.  Or, since France and Japan do not begin at war, I guess it could be shared.  Perhaps make this particular SZ rule up to each player of this game.

I realized something.  Now France will be forced to put at least 1 infantry on FIC (worth 2 IPCs).  That is cool.  I always thought there should be some French presence there.

[Jennifer]

Yes, and SZ 36 is a bit close to India, we’d probably want to avoid stacking SZ 36 and having India fall on J1…

[taschuler]

@De:

@taschuler:

CASH PER PLAYER PER TURN (in placement order):

• FRANCE (Total 132): 33 per turn

• ITALY (Total 223): 56 for the first three turns, 55 for turn four

• ANZAC (Total 91): 23 per turn, 22 for turn four

• UK (Calcutta) (Total 130): 33 for the first two turns, 32 for the last two turns

• UK (London) (Total 318): 80 for the first two turns, 79 for the last two turns

• China (Total 58): 15 for the first three turns, 13 for turn four

• USA (Total 278): 70 for the first two turns, 69 for the last two turns

• Japan (Total 570): 142 for the first two turns, 141 for the last two turns

• Russia (Total 248): 62 per turn

• Germany (Total 399): 100 for the first three turns, 99 for the last turn

Im sorry, forgive my ignorance, but which number is the money ammount players get? And could someone please explain this rule more clear as I dont exactly understand. Im sorry.

The amount in ( ) after the country’s name is the total IPC value they get. The part afterwards is the amount of that total they get to spend during each placement turn.

[taschuler]

@Cmdr:

Yes, and SZ 36 is a bit close to India, we’d probably want to avoid stacking SZ 36 and having India fall on J1…

How about?:

• You can only place naval units in zones adjacent to your territories. In sea zones where opposing sides border the same sea zone, total up the adjacent land IPC value and the side with the highest value can place units in that sea zone.

• Germany may place a Sub in any neutral Atlantic sea zone, no more than one Sub per neutral sea zone

• A land territory can only have a number of ships adjacent to it equal to the IPC value of the territory. If the territory has a naval base in it, it will allow 3 additional naval units to be placed in adjacent waters.

The first rule resolves SZ110 and SZ36. SZ110: UK/France 8 vs Germany 3; SZ36: France 2 vs Japan 1;
SZ20 with the above would go to the UK however and he could put a significant force there, although with limited capital to spend.
In order for the setup to work every player (most importantly France) has to defend their capital. I want to avoid a situation where France places Infantry to cover where they have to, and Navy to help UK with the rest of their cash.