Quote
Economic Isolation of small islands:
If you occupy the sea zone that surrounds the small island groups, the controlling player of that island group does not receive income until the sea zone is cleared of enemy ships.
Just because an island (eg. East Indies) is under blockade, resources (4 IPC) don’t just evaporate.
The resources can be spent on the island itself.
Hence I tried to incorporate it into convoy raiding, to keep it real.
But as mentioned previously I am not fond of allowing one single naval unit to destroy everything. I think convoy raiding is enough.
++++++++++++++ But that was the point of the greater east Asia prosperity sphere, to build a insurmountable line of fortified outposts of islands to protect Japans holdings. If Japan cant do that they should not get the income. Perhaps we can say on the second turn of isolation, the owning player does not receive income. That would give japan a chance to recover. Besides you keep bringing up that 4 IPC thing, when it is only the most resource rich island on the map, while most of these buggers are 1 IPC.
Quote
rewrite it without the mumbo jumbo.
Heres the problem.
I prefer it written short, consistent, and in game terms.
You prefer the W@W style. Static, nation oriented, historic replay style of writing.
Its not Xeno W@W, rather its more clear to people who are just picking up these rules for the first time and don’t want to have to figure what your getting at and can clearly understand whats going on in a self contained writing style. Its not important if you want a universal writing style, what is important is the mass players who benefit from this can get on with playing the game as soon as they finish reading it ONE TIME.
We shouldn’t have to remember which particular player can be raided by which particular players.
We shouldn’t let players have immunity even if the game goes differently to history.
++++++++++These rules are also trying to balance the game, The axis are in need of some basic tools considering the fact that they are economically totally outclassed. And we address this by giving play balance and some historical justification. Your point would be correct if each nation started out with the same IPC and the same military forces.
Quote
- Each German or Italian naval unit outside the Baltic and Mediterranean sea can strip one IPC of income from either UK or USA (if at war).
- Each Japanese Naval unit in the Pacific and within in any path of sea zones between British or American factories and any of her controlled income producing territories can cost either of these players 1 IPC.
- Each British and American Submarine in the Pacific Ocean in any path of sea zones between Japanese factories and any of her controlled income producing territories can cost the Japanese player 1 IPC.
I’ve already explained why static systems are unrealistic.
You can read the back log if you wish.
++++ what is written above is not a “static system” its just an outline of how income is stripped by naval ships, so that people are not confused into thinking that the axis are in the tank even more because we went against history in a variant designed to model History, and secondly, you made everybody have the same ability to sack 4 IPC or whatever because you want to give the allies even more things they can use their superior fleet for which bring imbalance.
I see this time you’ve expanded your system with wordings like “path”.
Its getting longer and longer. But it still doesn’t get rid of problems I’ve already mentioned.
What you wrote allows:
*10 German submarines at distant unrelated sea zones (eg. Argentina) hit UK for 10 IPC per turn
*10 Japanese submarines at Hawaii hit US for 10 IPC per turn
*10 US submarines at New Guinea hit Japan for 10 IPC per turn
++++++++ yes this is true, but its also true that the Axis cant pay for these items unless they are not spending it for land units. In the case of Argentina they are sinking ships that travel either to and from S America or go around the southern end. Look at a map of where the U-Boats operated and you will have the correct answer. www.uboat.net
In the case of Hawaii, this is also true. If japan can build that many subs and send them near American territories, then the USA player has either lost the game already or Germany just fell a bit early and they used every thing possible for Europe.
In the case of New Guinea, you can also look up what happened to Japanese shipping by American subs. If America built the historical equal to 10 subs, it would have been really effective.
Quote
These ideas and what we have from your text are totally different. What you wrote allows:
- Soviets to attack German IPC
- British to attack Italian
- British to attack German IPC
- American to attack German IPC
Nope.
The simple consistent rule models actual shipping.
Russia, Germany and US territories are lumped together. For the most of it you can’t hit their shipping. Until the status quo changes.
That consistent rule as you call it is not a historical model from ww2. Its an everything for everybody approach that turns a historical game into checkers. Otherwise whats stopping the American player from building SS panzers? You cant just lump together stuff that didn’t happen in world war two in sole pursuit of “universality” Remember this IS a historical version.
However if Germany takes Africa and they want to spend the money at Berlin, they’ll have to protect the related sea zones.
++++++++ Nope. I already made it clear that Germany is not effected by IPC naval raids. Besides they use the medd as the focal point of supplies, which the allies can only attack directly with planes if they control Malta or whatever.
And if Germany controls southern America, then the game is usually over anyway…
Quote
Reality: Germany didn’t have any merchant trade by sea except by iron ore deposits from Sweden. And the Soviets never had any capability to interfere with it.
Britain didn’t sink any Italian merchant ships, they sunk transports sending supplies to support DAK, and this was 85% done by fighters based in Malta.
Britain didn’t sink any Japanese merchant trade either.
Japan did sink some American trade in the Pacific. VERY LITTLE
American subs pulverized Japanese trading in the mid and late war period as they closed inside to Japan. It should have been persued more because it nearly starved Japan
Thats historic replay.
Its only realistic is the game happens the same as history.
My system is basic, universal and remains realistic regardless even if Germany takes Africa, or US takes South Pacific.
That would be fine for a ‘universal’ version of Revised. This is a Historical version. It is also a balanced version. Not one time in playtest have i ever used what you wrote on that 4 IPC thingy, rather we used the historical model, because for balance reasons the axis have a very small navy and would have to retool the economy totally differently to start buying 10 subs. If they did that Russians would crush Germany
