6.1 setup charts

:?

@Patchman123:

Can you add the Italian Maiale submarines and the British Long Range Desert Group LRDG to the game? I originally proposed a World War II game with Maiale submarines from the Decima MAS flotilla with my hand-drawn map of World War II, but since I found out about Doug Friend’s map, I decided to add my ideas to it. I would like to see the Special Air Service (SAS) in the game, too.  I think that Italy should have the Maiale submarines and have a bonus point against any Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean. The Maiale submarines will only be allowed to operate in the Mediterranean and they will have bonus points and warships will not get to roll against them. It will sort of be like the Italian equivalent of the Japanese kamikaze tokens. The Italian player will of course be limited as to how many Maiale submarines that they will get to roll per turn.  The Maiale will be any Italian submarine and the infantry aboard the submarine will attack the Allied surface warship in the Med.

I am not sure how to even make it work within the game. I was proposing a game with Maiale submarines against any ANZAC, French or British surface warships in the Mediterranean.

I also propose adding the Ariete Division for Italian elite units and the Folgore Parachute Division as Italian elite units. The Italians also had volunteers from India and the Middle East in their armies. I have a book on Italian elite units of World War II from 1940-1943.

Italy not only had Bersaglieri, they also had the Ariete Division and the Folgore Division.  You could add paratroopers to the Italian player.

You could also add torpedo bombers to the Italians. The Italians used the Savoia Marchetti SM. 79 as a torpedo bomber in the Mediterranean. You could also add torpedo bombers to the Germany, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Japan and the United States weren’t the only nations to have torpedo bombers.

I have another suggestion.

You could also add a Bearn class aircraft carrier to France. France’s only aircraft carrier in World War II was the Bearn class aircraft carrier.

The Bearn was out in the Atlantic when France surrendered in 1940. You could add torpedo bombers to the Soviet Union, too. The Soviet Union had torpedo bombers in the Baltic and Black Seas.

You could also add a plastic P-40 painted in China’s paint color to simulate the Flying Tigers.  There is so much that you could add there.

Patchman123.
[/quote

See, everyone! It’s not so bad. There’s Historical Board Gaming for that.
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces–US-Exp--P-47-Thunderbolt-Fighter-x5_p_2090.html
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces--Allies--P40-Warhawk-Early-War-Fighter-x5_p_1168.html

If anyone’s interested.

To the designers - how many games of 7.1 have you played?

Out of 6 games we have played Axis won once but that was mainly due to good rolls in first turn.

Axis have never taken all of Russia’s cities. In 5 games they never held a single Russian cities for more than 1 round. I wouldn’t even say Russia is too strong. The Baltic States/Poland issue definitely buys Russia an extra round (even though it only addresses the center).

It’s the 1st turn that is the issue now it seems. Germany and especially Italy can’t seem to get enough of the UK navy, planes, and infantry out of the way. I think 6.1 was 60/40 Axis favor but I’m thinking now it’s 80/20 Allies favor.

It seems there could be possible rule misinterpretations from various people on the board. What is the percentage breakdown for the designers win/loss in 7.1?

i like the convoy zone optional rule, however i believe there should be a qualification that the axis still only gain the income on an actual roll of a 1.  this would represent the fact that subs can’t steal cargo, their sole goal was to destroy merchant ships not seize them.

We are playing again on Friday. Any chance it will be up Friday morning?

Ben,

I sent you a message.

It’s really just a list of questions and suggestions. It’s more difficult to do this over an iPod than I expected.

Regardless, I hope it knocks down the despair a bit.

This is great news. Looking forward to it. We’ll try them out next game.

I do have a quick question for the creators brought up while discussing the minor axis powers in another thread:

If the Germans build a naval base on Romania can the Romanians (who don’t need an IC) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units in their capital (not ships next to it)? Using the same principle, are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.

I believe this next part is still under review, any word yet?

This leads me to a 2nd question, say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also fill the requirement to allow for ships to be built from Germany’s Romanian IC adjacent to it? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?

Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements for shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Say the Italians take Holland and build a NB (sz 16). Would the Italian NB allow the Germans to drop ships into sz 16 from their adjacent major IC in W Germany?