Yes the Soviets should have different rules on placement. the western allies actually spend time and resources to properly train soldiers. The Soviets just combed entire areas of males and gave them a gun and a bullet and said “go toward the Germans” if you get killed the comrade behind you picked up your gun and continued the fight. Of course i am taking some liberties with this characterization which is not entirely correct but its pretty damm close for 1942 Soviet Infantry situation. Only the Shock/ and Guard troops got some real training and equipment.
Here’s an idea that i want to throw out there:
western allies VCs are always considered ‘connected’ (like before), but now no VC may build more than 2 inf per turn. this means that max of 2 inf per turn are made in eastern and western us and uk and eastern canada (instead of 3 at all those places). this would make the 3 us territories can make only 6 inf per turn among them (instead of 8). is this more realisitic?
should western allies also get the advantage of inf made in the capital costs only 2 each?
here’s another idea:
how about we do away with the rule that if a VC is attacked before the defenders first turn, the defender can place inf there before the attack. we replace it with the rule that anytime throughout the game when a VC is attacked, the defender doesn’t have to assign a casualty on the first hit. this means that the defender gets one free hit per battle defending a VC.
i think a better way to say basically the same thing is to say that when defending a VC, 1 inf is a 2 hit unit (like a battleship).
either of these new rules will make the game more realistic IMO by modelling the extra defense in these VCs and reduce the occurence of these being traded back and forth costantly. now players will more likely hold off 1 turn and attack a VC next turn extra strong and only giving the defender 1 free hit instead of attacking a VC weak 2 turns in a row and giving the defender 2 free hits (one per turn).
if we want to go even further with this, we could say that VCs with more VCPs get more 2-hit infantry. number of 2 hit inf=number of VCPs might be too powerful…. 5 2-hit inf defending each capital might never make capitals taken. we could reduce the effect by limiting it to only the first combat round. after the first combat round all inf turn ack to regular 1-hit inf no matter if they were hit on turn 1 or not.
Its okay to have some defense modifiers to account for built up areas such as cities. Only that it should be explained as such and not bundled into what is allready been established. That way people looking at playing this will “see” what and how we arrive at historical realism. If we just insert this into the template of other rules “ad hoc” we would look quite arbitrary.
It should have its own section:
Terrain and weather:
of course this can be elaborated to effect say jungle islands in the pacific ( dug in defenders etc) or Italian mountains
every rule should definitely have its own explanation.
Shall we do that for phase 1 while they are fresh in memory?
Yea id say thats a good idea.
After working some of the numbers in the first turn of the game, it’s still too easy for Japan to take China on turn 1. I propose a minor change to the initial setup: China starts with 2 extra US infantry, Egypt with 1 extra UK infantry, Trans-Jordan with 1 extra UK infantry and the Kwangtung SZ with 1 extra DD. Note that both the Axis and the Allies each get a total of 12 IPCs worth of extra units.
what change made it too easy for Japan to take China on turn 1?
is it the new infantry placement of at VC instead of IC?
No, I didn’t mean that it’s easier to take China on turn 1 than with the OOB rules. I mean that it’s still too easy to take China on turn 1! Our rules do make it harder to take China, but we need to change the rules so it’s even harder still. That’s all I meant.
Oh I see.
Simplied rules for ICs:
-Every nation starts with an IC in their capital and major VC.
-Whenever any territory containing an IC is captured, the IC may be destroyed at the defender’s discretion.
-ICs placed at capital and major VCs cost 5 IPCs each.
-ICs placed at moderate and minor VCs cost 10 IPCs each.
-ICs placed in a territory with no VC cost 15 IPCs each.
The issue isn’t battleships vs aircraft carriers: the issue is control of the air.
Surface ships without air protection were vulnerable to air attack: the Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.
Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.
Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.
The quick fix for these facts is the optiional rule “Air Supremacy”:
Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.
Simplied rules for ICs:
-Every nation starts with an IC in their capital and major VC.
-Whenever any territory containing an IC is captured, the IC may be destroyed at the defender’s discretion.
-ICs placed at capital and major VCs cost 5 IPCs each.
-ICs placed at moderate and minor VCs cost 10 IPCs each.
-ICs placed in a territory with no VC cost 15 IPCs each.
I think we should still be able to destroy your IC otherwise.
When enemy keeps SBRing one of your unused ICs, at least you can destroy it to stop this strange situation.
Of course I am still worried about tiring population, transport as well as industrial to our abstract Victory City Points.
@B.:
The quick fix for these facts is the optiional rule “Air Supremacy”:
Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.
Yep we have something like that in mind in the land and naval combat threads.
And it probably won’t be optional.
We are very keen on the rule for both land and naval combat in phase 2 or 3.
Its quite important for historic realism.
Thoughts on switching UK’s major and moderate VC designation so India is now the major VC and Canada and Australia are the moderate VCs? Canada would still start with an IC and India would not.
Why do this?
-India had a larger population and military than Canada. With India as the major VC, India could assemble up to 3 inf per turn and Canada up to 2 inf per turn instead of the other way around.
-I assume possession of India was more important than possession of Canada (i.e. worth more VCPs), even though Canada was industrialized. I don’t know what real stats to compare to measure VCPs, but I’m thinking it would be a combination of GDP, population, resources etc… Thoughts on which territory should be worth 3 VCPs and 2 VCPs?
The only downside to this change is that now ICs don’t start exclusively in all capital and major VCs. If UK major VC=India, then UK wouldn’t have an IC in their major VC, but have an IC in one of their moderate VCs (Canada). This makes things slightly more complicated.
While we’re at it, should we change Japan’s VCs so Manchuria is a moderate VC and Kwangtung is a major VC? We would still keep a starting IC in Manchuria and still not have one in Kwangtung.
Varied VCP
I think we don’t need to limit ourselves to 15 VCPs for all powers.
Its not like it achieves game balance on its own anyway, axis 30 vs allies 45.
Lets adjust VCPs of each city according to population.
Russia just had more people power than UK or US. Its as simple as that.
VCP and IC
…Canada would still start with an IC and India would not…
keep a starting IC in Manchuria and still not have one in Kwangtung.
Here we don’t have to model industrial power within VCPs. If it was just population we would be fine. Leaving IC on its own. India certainly has more population. Canada is certainly more industrialised.
Victory
Maybe we can have economic or population mode.
By the way why is Major victory 45 for axis and 55 for allies?
So axis needs 15 more while allies only need 10 more?
It is easier for Axis to take VCs that they didn’t start with.
Letting Axis win with 15 and Allies with 10 is to level out the difficulty of winning, not the overall number of VCPs.
It is easier for Axis to take VCs that they didn’t start with.
Letting Axis win with 15 and Allies with 10 is to level out the difficulty of winning, not the overall number of VCPs.
Yeah of course its for difficulty of winning not overall number. So fair enough if you say Axis take additional VC easier.
So for this Canada/India and Manchuria/Kwangtung situation I say ICs start where they should depending on 1942 situation.
Instead of major and moderate VCs.
