[Global 1940] Balancing Calcutta Crush - IJA vs IJN inter service rivalry

TripleaA lobby is seeing a lot of bids between 16-24 on average? In LL I agree with what’s been said, I really am starting to come to the conclusion that even mid-20s makes it a very tough match for Allies. I am not surprised the league is going higher than that. But I really do think you need to guage the skill level of your opponent. If you get a newbie in your triplea lobby, maybe cut them a break. It’s the somewhat experienced guys that always throw me, strong for about 3-5 rounds but then don’t really have any mid-game strategy experieince. It’s hard to know how much to bid in those cases too.

But anyway, back to what units are getting bought: Subs/DDs around the Med for UK. Sometimes fighters for UK (Scotland, Malta). Other threads have answered this question as well, from recent memory: Inf in Yunnan for example, and ground units in africa.

Less often variations: Russia bomber, UK transport in South Africa. UK sub in Malaya. I’ve also seen Subs in the north atlantic.

Some people dump a bunch of ground units in Russia. Whether or not that actually does anything I doubt.

I am also going to take this opportunity to plug this thread about Bids and bid rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35874/allied-bids-what-are-the-common-rules-on-placement … I do so to personally recommend not allowing facilities for bids.

@timothy-gengarella In OOB, Netherlands would go German. With the Diplomacy expansion, they would go British. But most players put in restrictions that an attack by a major on a minor must have an actual attack of some sort to prevent it from being taken advantage of.

FBC9643C-5703-4B6B-8E07-557FA9698BAA.jpeg

I’m reviewing all Vichy rules available out there, as I plan to make a unique mod, because I like historical realism and simplicity, with minimized luck of dice, and some “asymmetric balance”.

Some major points I’ve posted elsewhere in the forum:

The main issue for this expansion is how to develop French neutrality, while at the same time providing a bonus to Germany. Apparently ignored by most players, in real life (IRL), Germany economically exploited Vichy, which had to richly sustain 300,000 German troops stationed in Northern France. Therefore, in the game, it only makes total sense that Germany gets the 3 IPCs from Vichy Southern France.

Another related major issue is what to do with French colonies in terms of neutrality/occupation and IPC flows. I agree that the Vichy setup should reflect what happened IRL: North Africa, Syria, and Indochina go to Vichy, while other French colonies stay Free. However, it messes up Italy’s incursions into North Africa (as IRL, Hitler denied French colonies to Italy). I’m not sure yet as to the best approach to subjecting these colonies to invasion, occupation, and who gains IPCs (other than agreeing that Japan has easy access “rights” over Vichy Indochina), and also remote units…

Germany never fought Vichy. IRL, with Operation Torch, Germany simply occupied Vichy in 1942, with no resistance whatsoever. Vichy units were disbanded. That can be also the case in the game. Just remove Vichy units.

The uncertainty surrounding local pre-battles is quite interesting (will Vichy troops welcome or resist Allies in North Africa?..). However, I’d try to minimize dice randomness that is often used to decide some outcome. IRL, Vichy troops (just like Italians) surrendered as soon as seeing enemy superiority: thus, in the game, if Allies send more land + air units than defending Vichy units, then there should be no battle but quick surrender. Or, make it highly unlikely that a battle would ensue (for example, need to roll a 1).

I’m now working on my own house rules, for an expansion (HBG lingo) that is quite realistic, fun yet simple. If anyone is interested, let me know and I’ll be happy to share my rules when ready…

phd_angel@yahoo.com

Chicago, December 2020

I can text you pics of the map too if you need.
You could look at map Sat if u wanted to show and play allies with me. I got a Gib plan too that u kinda wanted to try.

I like the rule.  I think I would make the replacement or added launcehers a little more, maybe 10 IPC’s since it is a free SBR on an opponent’s facility.  A bomber an be shot down.  A rocket is just deadly.  A mobile unit transported or moved into a forward position would be handy for the US.  A rocket launcher in Tobruk would help soften up Egypt or Northern and Southern Italy.  If Rome is captured the US or UK, rocket strikes from London and Rome om German facilities would be devostating to the Germans.  Even Japan could use this tech on Calcutta or Sidney.

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

that would be cool :-D