Weapons Developement?

[KimRYoung]

Russia: Improved Artillery?
Japan:  No freakin clue.  Maybe LRA?  Not that they need MORE range on their planes!

Russian artillery was notoriously inferior to their western allies, it only was effective due to the massive numbers employed in massed barrages. Probably a better choice would be Improved Mech to represent Soviet Tankodesantniki.

Japan actually was the nation to develop “Super Subs”. Unfortunately the Japanese Super Subs didn’t work like the super subs in the game since they carried 3 aircraft and and were designed to surface launch planes to attack targets on land. They were the largest subs made prior to nuclear subs though.

Kim

[Jennifer]

I was thinking of advanced artillery (for the Russians) being more IEDs, massed cannon fie, etc.  I wasn’t thinking accuracy.  Since Advanced artillery supports 2 infantry units, I was kinda going “okay, so twice as many.”  I could be wrong, I honestly and truly believe that tech was thrown in “at the last minute” without much thought or concern for how it would function.  Why?  War bonds and if that isn’t enough said think about it!  How useless were war bonds before?  How utterly useless are they now?  What would it take to “fix” them?  doubling the dice would be enough really, at least to put them back on par with the increased map size.  Just a thought.

There has been talk from players about how you could house rule tech trees, but I think that would be too confusing to ever implement anywhere with any seriousness other than just a play at home group.  I think it is better to pair technologies up like War Bonds + Rockets.  Heavy Bombers + Paratroopers.  Not to mention you go down to 1 tree and since techs are doubled the cost of getting them is better, in my mind.  I mean the above are SUGGESTIONS not like “I want to do it THIS way.”

[Seador]

My list would have some differences.

Germany:  Improved mech.  When I think of early war Germany, it’s film of mechanized forces moving into Poland.  Jets were a late war development and the sub campaign was more a function of tactics than technology.
Russia:  Improved Industry.  Any nation that is pumping tanks out of the Stalingrad factories as the Germans are invading can really keep it going.
Japan: None
USA:  Heavy Bombers.  I think ship yards and improved factory production are both good choices, but both are too big of an advantage for the US to start with.
China:  None
UK:  Warbonds. The UK understood “total war” sooner than anyone else IMO.  I appreciate Radar as the sentimental favorite, but reject it because I’m not comfortable with invalidating Sealion and India Crush in one blow.
Italy:  Improved Shipyards.  The Italian Navy was huge compared to the total output of the nation itself.  They probably bankrupted themselves to do it, but hey, they built the ships somehow.
ANZAK:  None
French:  None

[theROCmonster]

Can’t Japan get something? I feel like Heavy bombers are awesome, and UK getting 3.5 that he can spend on either side of the board is really powerful. Russia’s tech is pretty nice for the start, and makes strategic bombing a lot less effective. Germany’s tech is perfect for him, since my Germany normally buys mostly mech anyways after turn 2. Italy’s tech I feel is helpful, but might make him build too many ships and not enough ground, though I do like how that matches historically how Italy acted. The problem here is Japan isn’t getting any help, and on the pacific side UK got help and US got a lot of help with heavy bombers. Not sure what tech you could give Japan, or you could just take away US’s heavy bombers and give him paratroopers.

[knp7765]

Personally, I think Japan should get either long range aircraft or improved shipyards. They are both good techs for Japan and either is matched by the USA’s heavy bombers.
Also, as for the improved shipyards, there’s no reason Japan and Italy couldn’t have the same tech. In fact, I wouldn’t think it was a problem for more than one country to have any of the techs.
As for ANZAC, perhaps they could also have UK’s tech of War Bonds. Actually, that one is a “take it or leave it” thing for me.
theROCmonster,
NO, don’t take heavy bombers away from the US. If anyone deserves that tech, it would be the US. And certainly don’t replace it with paratroopers. For one thing, that is the big SUCK of all the techs. Next to worthless as far as I’m concerned. Secondly, it really shouldn’t be a tech. It should be more of an elite infantry unit and incorporated into game play for all nations. Give it a cost of 4 IPCs and use the rules governing paratroopers.
In my game group, we have been wanting to replace that tech with something more “techy” and useful. We just haven’t taken the time to come up with one yet because we don’t really use tech that often. Although that may change with a new method of developing tech. Each player picks the chart to develop, rolls to see which tech they can possibly get, THEN decide whether or not and how much to invest in a tech roll that round. If you get a 6, you get the tech you rolled for. If not, your research failed and you try again next turn. We’ve already tried it on a couple of games of Anniversary and it was great. Can’t wait to try it on Global 40.

[Jennifer]

The problem with the US and Japan is how many technologies fit for them to start with.

Japan could start with Jets using Pearl Harbor for Justification
America could star with Radar using Pearl Harbor for Justification

Japan AND America could start with shipyards using the battle in the pacific for justification.

Just to select two examples (first showing different techs second showing same tech.)  There are more examples of course!

[gamerman01]

Jets for Pearl Harbor??  Japan had pretty much all of their available carrier based aircraft for the assault and of course had the element of surprise, but there were zero jets involved at Pearl…

[knp7765]

I don’t think she means actual jets, just the jet fighter tech which would allow Japan’s fighters to hit @ 4. So, all of Japan’s planes, fighters and tacs, would be hitting the US ships @ 4 almost guaranteeing all hits in the first round of combat.
What gets me about OUR version of Pearl Harbor vs. the actual attack is that if Japan chooses to attack the US fleet in SZ 26, thus simulating a Pearl Harbor attack, more often than not Japan will not just send planes, but warships as well and usually ends up occupying the sea zone around Hawaii. In the actual attack, the entire attack force was made up of aircraft with a couple of midget submarines and once it was over, the fleet high-tailed it back to Japan.
Also, if you really wanted to simulate Pearl Harbor, the US fleet should only be able to defend @ 1 for all types of ships, including Battleships. After all, out of some 400 or so planes between the first and second attack waves, Japan only lost 29 planes.
Remember the original A&A Pacific? On the first turn, all Allied forces defended @ 1 to represent the surprise and fast advance of the Japanese war machine. The exception was any attacks against Chinese forces. They still defended like normal. I wonder how that would work in a game of Pacific 1940 or Global 1940. Say the first attacks made by Japan on UK, ANZAC and/or US forces, those defenders defend @ 1 for that round only, not including China or USSR. I would imagine there would be more J1 or J2 DOWs. Then again, Japan might wait until J3 or J4 so they can get more forces into position. If that were the case, what do you think the Western Allies would do before Japan attacks? Perhaps pull all their stuff back as much as possible so they lose as little as necessary defending @ 1?

[Jennifer]

I don’t think Pearl Harbor can really be performed in this game.  America will either have more or less there, or the battle would take place prior to December 1941…

Also, the American carriers were not present at Pearl because they were out on maneuvers.

[gamerman01]

Right - the game doesn’t start in December of 1941.  There were a lot of battleships at Pearl at the time of the attack, and there isn’t even 1 battleship in Z26 at game start.

[Jennifer]

@Gamerman01:

Right - the game doesn’t start in December of 1941.  There were a lot of battleships at Pearl at the time of the attack, and there isn’t even 1 battleship in Z26 at game start.

Yes, but those battleships were World War 1 battleships with wooden decks.  I’d say those battleships, if converted to Axis and Allies pieces, would really be cruisers.  Just my opinion.

Anyway, I’ve oft been seen saying the following:  “If you want the game to be historically accurate then the Axis may not be permitted to win the game, no matter what, since historically speaking, they lost 100% of the World War 2’s fought.”

[gamerman01]

Sure, but I think a lot of players would like to see a historically accurate STARTing setup, that’s all.  We all like to see the game unfold in different ways.  Otherwise we could just watch a documentary and see REAL tanks, after all

[knp7765]

The starting setup is historically accurate, or at least very close. Specifically regarding the US Navy. The game starts immediately after the Dunkirk evacuation of the British Army which is early June 1940. At that time, the bulk of the US Navy was based in San Diego. They moved to Pearl to beef up the Pacific fleet in January 1941 due to Japanese action in the Pacific.

[gamerman01]

Good points
However there are certainly (probably many) gross inaccuracies.

The battleship off Malaya presumably represents the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.  According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse these capital ships were not sent to Malaya until December, 1941.

It also says in this article that the “bulk” of ANZAC’s forces were sent to North Africa.
Starting setup has 2 ANZ infantry in Egypt and much more than that in Australia/New Zealand.  Hmmmmmmm……

Also, “Due to the emphasis placed on cooperation with Britain, relatively few Australian military units were stationed in Australia and the Asia-Pacific Region after 1940. Measures were taken to improve Australia’s defences as war with Japan loomed in 1941, but these proved inadequate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

“The beginning of the Pacific War — and the rapid advance of Japanese forces — threatened the Australian mainland for the first time. The RAAF was quite unprepared for the emergency, and initially had negligible forces available for service in the Pacific.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Air_Force#World_War_II
Starting setup has ANZ with THREE fighters, which is ridiculous.
As I’ve been saying ever since P40 came out, ANZ is ridiculously OP compared to RL  :-)

[Jennifer]

IMHO what is inaccurate is that Australia starts with the same number of planes as Russia.  RUSSIA!!!  You know, that vast empire!?!?

By 1938, the Soviet Union had the largest air force in the world, but Soviet aeronautical design was distinctly lagging behind Western technological advances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Forces

Now, I understand that Germany, US, UK and Japan should have more planes - despite the USSR having the largest air force in the world.  Yes the tech was not the same as the Germans or British had.  Fine.  I get that.  TBH, I would change the Russian fighter from a 3/4 unit to a 3/2 unit and reduce the price to 7 IPC.  Maybe reduce cruising range to 3 as well (4 with air base.)  Then I would double the fighters on the board (4 fighters, 1 tactical bomber.)  Bar the Russians from building normal fighters or strategic bombers.

Short of inventing new stats that just impact Russia, not sure how to handle it.

[knp7765]

Would you do that for Russia for the entire game? Or just the first 3-4 rounds after they enter the war in Europe?
I ask this because while the early Russian aircraft did pretty much suck, which is why the Luftwaffe just had themselves a ball for the first year or so, later on they came out with really good planes, both fighters and tactical bombers, that became a good match for the Luftwaffe planes (Yak-3, Mig-3, IL-2, etc.)
Personally, I think it would be a better idea to do like you say, double the fighters but half their defense value and lower the cost to 7 IPCs but only for the first 3 rounds after they are at war with Germany/Italy. On the 4th round, they can buy normal fighters. Plus, if you have any of those HBG Russian Early War pieces, you can use the I-16 fighters to represent the earlier units and the OOB Yak-3 fighters to represent normal/later war fighters.
As for Strategic Bombers, that’s kind of an odd unit for Russia in this game. Just about the only time Russia ever buys Strategic Bombers in our games is when the Allies are winning, Germany/Italy are pretty much done for and everyone is ganging up to finish off Japan. While the US builds up a proper invasion force, UK and USSR send bombers to SBR Japan and sometimes even to take out a few infantry in regular attacks to make the US invasion a little easier.
The point being that we so rarely see Russia buying strategic bombers that I don’t think there needs to be any type of rule prohibiting them from doing so. Perhaps your games are different?
It just seems to me like a waste of money for Russia to buy a strategic bomber when in the face of the German onslaught, 4 infantry or 2 tanks would do much better.
Oh yeah, and from what you and Gamerman01 pointed out, I do see that there are many flaws in the setup when compared to historical placements. I’ve always thought that ANZAC was overstocked with fighters. In Pacific 1940 1st edition, they had 3 fighters on New Zealand and a 4th on Queensland! Of course, I think Japan started with seven more planes than they do now. What craziness was that?!?
Even now in the 2nd edition, Japan starts with 21 planes but Germany only starts out with 12. That doesn’t seem right.

[gamerman01]

Enjoyed those last posts, knp and Jenn, and at a glance it looks like I agree with you