I’m ok with these setting also, if you’re not satisfied tweak the rules for your own liking. I feel bad for Larry having to put up with all of us, no matter what he changes there’s always going to be someone unhappy.
This setup looks great on paper. Looking forward to trying it out. It seems like a lot of issues have been addressed at least.
I have one question regarding the Japanese not-at-war National Objective. The requirements were changed (simplified?) from not attacking US/UK/France to not attacking US/UK/French Indo China.
Does this mean that Japan can attack New Hebrides (French island, SZ 53) and still claim the NO? I’ve had a strategy floating around in my head for awhile regarding taking this island J2. I’m guessing you cannot, just need some confirmation so I don’t have to think about it anymore. :-D
Edit: just remembered that, during the diplomatic negotiations in 1941 before Pearl, the US specifically warned the Japan not to move south into Indo-China. So the change from France to French-Indo makes sense from an historical point of view.
Questioner I have a question concerning rule change #6 is it now 6 of 8 and 8 of 11, or is 6 of 8 or 8 of 11
Questioner I have a question concerning rule change #6 is it now 6 of 8 and 8 of 11, or is 6 of 8 or 8 of 11
6. Victory Conditions
The game now ends immediately after any one of the following occurs
A. Victory for the Allies if: All Axis capitals are under allied control.
B. victory for the axis if they control 6 of the 8 victory cities on the Pacific board.
C. victory for the axis if they control 8 of the 11 victory cities on the Europe board.
victory is immediate if any of the conditions is met.
either or will win.
This setup looks great on paper. Looking forward to trying it out. It seems like a lot of issues have been addressed at least.
I have one question regarding the Japanese not-at-war National Objective. The requirements were changed (simplified?) from not attacking US/UK/France to not attacking US/UK/French Indo China.
Does this mean that Japan can attack New Hebrides (French island, SZ 53) and still claim the NO? I’ve had a strategy floating around in my head for awhile regarding taking this island J2.
I’m guessing you cannot, just need some confirmation so I don’t have to think about it anymore. :-DEdit: just remembered that, during the diplomatic negotiations in 1941 before Pearl, the US specifically warned the Japan not to move south into Indo-China. So the change from France to French-Indo makes sense from an historical point of view.
I would think it may include all French tt or attacks on French units when it gets to the official FAQ (Jap air could possibly attack the French DD off Madag if it moves? etc…). Maybe it will just have to do w/French tt/units on the Pac map (I don’t think Jap can even get to the French on the Euro side before this NO would be revoked).
Larry has said that this is more of a blue print of what he wants to do, but Krieghund will go through the wording etc… before the final draft is put into the FAQ.
So good tip for Krieghund to look at this situation. How about it Krieg?
Edit: Oh, BTW thanks Q for posting the latest direction, my copy was getting hard to read with all the pencil changes I was making.
Questioner I have a question concerning rule change #6 is it now 6 of 8 and 8 of 11, or is 6 of 8 or 8 of 11
6. Victory Conditions
The game now ends immediately after any one of the following occurs
A. Victory for the Allies if: All Axis capitals are under allied control.
B. victory for the axis if they control 6 of the 8 victory cities on the Pacific board.
C. victory for the axis if they control 8 of the 11 victory cities on the Europe board.victory is immediate if any of the conditions is met.
either or will win.
Would this work better if in addition to the axis victory conditions that they would also have to hold a certain # of VC’s on the opposite board too. It wouldn’t have to be a high #, but it seems weird that the axis could loose every VC on the Euro board, but still win the game. Same for the the opposite scenario.
There’s a reason the Med changes weren’t moved to page 1. As Larry said, those changes are completely untested. Attacks on SZ 97 and Tobruk favor UK to the point where Italy will be crippled worse than in the OOB game. I’ve haven’t seen any playtesting being done on the forums or battle reports that would indicate a need for this change.
There’s a reason the Med changes weren’t moved to page 1. As Larry said, those changes are completely untested. Attacks on SZ 97 and Tobruk favor UK to the point where Italy will be crippled worse than in the OOB game. I’ve haven’t seen any playtesting being done on the forums or battle reports that would indicate a need for this change.
I’ve playtested a game where UK got lucky in Z97 and Tobruk and was able to cripple Italy. However, if Germany had moved just 1 plane to South Italy, an attack on Z97 would be unviable.
None of that matters because Japan was able to take Hawaii and Sydney, with the US unable to respond due to the fact that it only had minors.
There’s a reason the Med changes weren’t moved to page 1. As Larry said, those changes are completely untested. Attacks on SZ 97 and Tobruk favor UK to the point where Italy will be crippled worse than in the OOB game. I’ve haven’t seen any playtesting being done on the forums or battle reports that would indicate a need for this change.
Well if we don’t include the Med changes how would we test them? Q put in the text that this set up includes the newest Med set-up (we know its not tested, that is what we are trying to do). It’s for those of us who want to test it out. Maybe Q should point that out a little better though.
You have the option of not using it, and go with whats on Larry’s 1st page. I know that Larry has said he plans on moving the AB from N Italy to S Italy, and that he’ll most likely remove the AB from Sicily too. It is still not in his update yet though.
I think Q may have taken some liberties, but this is what I will be using for now. It was very helpful.
I’ve playtested a game where UK got lucky in Z97 and Tobruk and was able to cripple Italy. However, if Germany had moved just 1 plane to South Italy, an attack on Z97 would be unviable.
None of that matters because Japan was able to take Hawaii and Sydney, with the US unable to respond due to the fact that it only had minors.
Yep that is my thinking too. I like the minors though. I think the Jap (axis) victory conditions shouldn’t be immediately at 6 VC, at least give the US its turn to counter it. Same for the Euro side. Other wise we’ll have a lot of 3-4 turn games.
I’m glad we play until someone cry’s uncle.
it seems to me that Italy cannot compete with the new changes. if it attacks with its entire navy against the British med fleet, then it might win but with very heavy losses. also, Tobruk is way to weak! it can barley concur Alexandria. if it does it gets kicked out of Africa by the British 8th army. the extra infantry in Southern Italy are nice, but cant go anywhere. if Italy either attacks the British or vice verse, then the transports are basically dead because of the French Navy. What im trying to say is that Italy is way too weak and needs more in the central med and N. Africa. sorry if im ranting on.
@WILD:
I’ve playtested a game where UK got lucky in Z97 and Tobruk and was able to cripple Italy. However, if Germany had moved just 1 plane to South Italy, an attack on Z97 would be unviable.
None of that matters because Japan was able to take Hawaii and Sydney, with the US unable to respond due to the fact that it only had minors.
Yep that is my thinking too. I like the minors though. I think the Jap (axis) victory conditions shouldn’t be immediately at 6 VC, at least give the US its turn to counter it. Same for the Euro side. Other wise we’ll have a lot of 3-4 turn games.
I’m glad we play until someone cry’s uncle.
Yeah, I could immediately retake Hawaii if Japan didn’t win immediately.
However, there’s still a problem if Germany does Sealion. japan’s moves prevent the US from saving the UK. The UK must choose between attacking Italy or giving Italy Africa and protecting itself.
Have to agree with Calvin here. My group never even tried to play the 6 VC Axis win in the Pacific because it looked waaaay too easy to achieve. We’ve had some good games playing with a 7 VC goal for the Pacific side. Of course all 3 games its actually been the EuroAxis that’ve won it.
@WILD:
I’ve playtested a game where UK got lucky in Z97 and Tobruk and was able to cripple Italy. However, if Germany had moved just 1 plane to South Italy, an attack on Z97 would be unviable.
None of that matters because Japan was able to take Hawaii and Sydney, with the US unable to respond due to the fact that it only had minors.
Yep that is my thinking too. I like the minors though. I think the Jap (axis) victory conditions shouldn’t be immediately at 6 VC, at least give the US its turn to counter it. Same for the Euro side. Other wise we’ll have a lot of 3-4 turn games.
I’m glad we play until someone cry’s uncle.
Yeah, I could immediately retake Hawaii if Japan didn’t win immediately.
However, there’s still a problem if Germany does Sealion. japan’s moves prevent the US from saving the UK. The UK must choose between attacking Italy or giving Italy Africa and protecting itself.
I don’t see a problem with making tough choices. The US should have its own back yard cleaned up (stop Jap/axis victory), before it try’s to stop a German Sea lion, or make a run for the Med. Actually this would be a good axis strat to force the US from a big Euro push (as was intended). The US could always fly some ftrs to def UK once at war to try to get Germany to back out. I don’t have a problem with the US having to take back the 6th VC if indeed it is changed to allow them to counter, (as it should be, where’s Krieghunds stand on this?). If it delays a UK liberation, or allied domination in the Med so be it
Its not like the axis can set-up victory conditions on both boards in the early rounds, and the US has to take back a VC on both boards. If it happens (not sure it could), then the US would have been brought into the war early and its IC would be upgraded in round 1 or 2.
Maybe the axis victory in the individual theaters should also include a few VC from the other board (Just a few TBD), and the allies should have until the end of the US turn to counter it. There is still a combined collection of VC’s from both boards for the axis to win right? Have that # lowered if you have achieved the individual theater goals (but allow a US counter).
Krieghund, do you have an option on this? Do you see how easy it is for Japan to get 6 VC’s, and end the game prematurely with the US unable to mobilizes (minor IC’s, which I like), or counter? Are we way off on this, and there is something we are not accounting for?
Bill, it is nearly impossible for the US to save Hawaii with just a minor IC. Add that to the fact that, even if UK defends as much as possible, Germany can still take it G4 since the US is busy in the Pacific, makes this setup unappealing. Once again, people complain that Italy doesn’t do well but overlook the fact that neither does the UK.
The UK is much harder to take with the new scramble rules. Germany just getting enough ships to ensure a landing makes things harder. Navy and air buys are much easier for the UK to do to counter instead of buying nothing but stacks of infantry. I’ve been looking at the odds in a game I’m playing against Infrastructure and each step as Germany prepares is dicey. I nearly had a “safe” attack planned out one round but a couple dice rolls that didn’t go my way ensured that he would have made the amphibious assault a very difficult proposition.
What is going on in the Pacific that you are losing it so easily?
Look at my game vs allweneedislove.
Keep in mind Germany no longer needs to build a Carrier to protect his fleet from UK air attack, meaning more can be spent on transports.
I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).
I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.
I would still like to hear from Krieghund on this and see what his stand is on this topic, or possible solutions. Is there something you/we are missing. He is always open to us and is the voice of reason w/Larry most times.
This is still all a testing thing at this point, it is not a done deal. Larry may have stopped the back-n-forth communications (can’t blame him its time consuming & nerve racking), but he is still checking post on his site and reading stuff. Look at the bottom of the pages and you’ll see a Larry in the “who’s browsing this forum” all times of the day & night. Hell I just checked he’s there now.
I reviewed your game Calvin. It does seem that with that Med change, it is pretty hard for the UK to fend off Sealion just as before. It doesn’t seem like a desirable change.
You did mop up Italy pretty well as I expected. If the Pacific hadn’t collapsed, you may have come out even. But is the game fun with Italy crippled and the UK wiped out, as could happen nearly every game? I don’t believe so.
This could perhaps be rectified by just giving the UK more infantry stationed to begin with. It’s not like they’d be doing much but defending, so I don’t think it would hurt Germany too much.
The new Med set up is nice because it gives UK different options and allows for an actual Taranto raid. That is, if fewer eggs were put into the SZ 97 basket. Pump up the forces a bit in Tobruk too and maybe this will work.
On the Pacific side, I think the mistake was abandoning Hawaii. Even with 3 production, I believe the US has enough to to set up a counter strike and basically end Japan if they are going for both Hawaii and Queensland simultaneously.
The reason I abandoned Hawaii was that Japan was threatening WUS. I knew that building 3 defending units wouldn’t help much, so I built a defending fleet.
