Confirmed Details???

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Obviously I can not tell for sure since I haven’t played the game, but this really seems to make SBR’s much more powerful, especially if bombers now only cost $13 and Germanys base income is $10 less.  And I am not sure I want to get involved in a game whose outcome depends on how well you can roll “1”'s to keep the bombers off you.

Your CAP would defend at 2 though.

@axis_roll:

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Obviously I can not tell for sure since I haven’t played the game, but this really seems to make SBR’s much more powerful, especially if bombers now only cost $13 and Germanys base income is $10 less.  And I am not sure I want to get involved in a game whose outcome depends on how well you can roll “1”'s to keep the bombers off you.

Well, if it makes it worse for you… the winners at GenCon say they dominated because US just shipped bombers to Germany…  :x

I dunno, I might just try out Enhanced if this game isn’t balanced  :-D until of course an AA50 Enhanced is made!

I like the Strategic Bombing Rule Larry made for the Anniversary. It makes the bombing much more realistic than before. Do you lose IPC’s AND lose production at your factory or just the second option?

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.

Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed.  The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production.  Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5.  If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170.  Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use.  Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US.  Have to give that some thought.

@timerover51:

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.

Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed.  The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production.  Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5.  If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170.  Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use.  Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US.  Have to give that some thought.

Good luck finding someone to play Axis.

He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.

@shermantank:

I like the Strategic Bombing Rule Larry made for the Anniversary. It makes the bombing much more realistic than before. Do you lose IPC’s AND lose production at your factory or just the second option?

That’s funny… you like the rule but don’t know the details  :roll:  :lol: :lol: :lol:

LMFAO!!!

yea thats kinda funny actually. :-D

@Imperious:

He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.

I take it Imperious Leader, that you would have preferred having the Axis win WW2?  If that had happened, I likely would not be alive now.  Question is, if the Axis had one, how many of you Axis players would be? And you are correct, I have no problems whatsoever with the Axis loosing 100% of the time.  By the way, when is the last time you read a good summary of either the German or Japanese war crimes trials?  For the Japanese especially, I would recomment a very strong stomach.

The game has to be heavily biased against the Allies for the Axis players to have a chance at winning.  It has to have that or it will not sell.  I fully understand that.  That does not mean that I have to play it as given.  I am not asking any of you to play with any of my modifications.  I am just making sure that everyone is aware how much bias is built into the game.

As for students playing the game, I will discuss that with my co-teacher.  Given the time that we have to work with, I am not sure if we will use A&A50 or not.  If we do, the Italian player will definitely have the option of switching sides, without being conquered first, with his equipement being supplied by Lend-Lease.  I will also need to thoroughly review the naval force relationships in the game.  In both Classic and Revised, they are heavily biased against the US and the UK.  Being a naval historian, I have never been thrilled with that.

I take it Imperious Leader, that you would have preferred having the Axis win WW2?

Not at all. I wanted them to win WW1 actually because France started that war and because they won they got to label Germany the key nation that started the war.

I would like the war to contain the realistic elements that were possible, which allows for different outcomes because the war frankly was Germany to lose before 1942 and they just threw away their chances. The economics were enough in the early period to allow it to result in axis victory on all fronts and fortunately that didn’t happen, but History taught in this way is a failure to learn from if you can’t or wont be allowed to see how it could have been lost and if it was to be lost by students playing a simulation would learn alot more if allowed to see how it would have changed the world if the allies failed to stop the axis powers. All simulations are designed to not only portray the events, but the possibilities as well and this game is no exception.

By the way, when is the last time you read a good summary of either the German or Japanese war crimes trials?

Those were in the chapter just before the one about 20 million Russians dying because of Stalin, the one about all the Chinese who died at the hands of Mao Ze dong’s communists and before the Japanese internment camps in California. and the fire bombing of Dresden and tokyo and the chapter about the Atomic bombs dropping on people teice.

All sides committed horror and a life is a life equal to any other in value. You might as well said something about the war dead.

Excellent reply IL,both sides commited attrocities.I hate seeing all Axis powers portrayed as evil minions.

I agree with respect to Stalin, but short of declaring war on the USSR, there was not a lot the US or UK could do.  Based on my research at the US National Archives, a figure of 50 million Chinese killed by the Japanese Army appears reasonable. Note, these killing were filmed and shown in theater throughout Japanese to demonstrate Japanese dominance.

As for the Japanese internment camps, again, based on research in the Archives with respect to communication intercepts, I find some justification for those.  The Japanese on the Hawaiian Islands were running a pretty good intelligence collection effort throughout the war, and passing the information to Japan through the South American naval attachees, the Argentine, Chilean, and Peruvian in particular.  The Chilean Naval Minister received a payoff from the Japanese in the form of $50,000 dollars in gold for one item, which he pocketed the money for and then never did.

Dresden should not have been attacked, I will concede that.  As for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the firebombing, I have no problems whatsoever.  The Japanese got precisely what they deserved.

As for Imperious Leader’s comment on the French starting WW1, what bizarre history have you been studying?

@timerover51:

@Imperious:

He has lots of luck. He gets his students to play it and he has no problem with axis losing 100% of the time. He’s using it as a model to show what happened Historically as opposed to what might have happened given the elimination of a few mistakes entirely under the German leadership. And he does not believe any other result was possible.

I take it Imperious Leader, that you would have preferred having the Axis win WW2?  If that had happened, I likely would not be alive now.  Question is, if the Axis had one, how many of you Axis players would be? And you are correct, I have no problems whatsoever with the Axis loosing 100% of the time.  By the way, when is the last time you read a good summary of either the German or Japanese war crimes trials?  For the Japanese especially, I would recomment a very strong stomach.

Can we stop with the “closet nazi” trashing please. People who like ww2 games and like to play axis countries are not closet nazis nor do they hate jews or anything of the sort.

Its rather offensive and does nothing to further discussion of Larry’s game.

@Imperious:

All sides committed horror and a life is a life equal to any other in value. You might as well said something about the war dead.

I agree 100%!  In WWII, all sides committed atrocities, even the beloved Western Allies in Dresden and Japan’s atomic bombing!  The fact is, the victors write the history with any biases they want.

@timerover51:

Dresden should not have been attacked, I will concede that.  As for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the firebombing, I have no problems whatsoever.  The Japanese got precisely what they deserved.

As for Imperious Leader’s comment on the French starting WW1, what bizarre history have you been studying?

:| That is very ignorant, if you ask me.  Since you admitted Dresden was a tragedy and Russia’s killings were wrong (although you dismiss us as “powerless to stop them”), I can’t call you completely biased against the Axis nations, but quite a bit of bias is there if you can say that the Japanese deserved to suffer…

I too am curious about Imperious Leader’s comment on WWI, however, most people know that blaming the war on Germany was wrong.  I believe America was strongly against the Treaty of Versailles, but our protests fell on deaf ears.

It’s ok, he’s a teacher, he’s allowed to be “a nice guy”.

Edit: Lets be nice please

@03321:

It’s ok, he’s a teacher, he’s allowed to be a nice guy.

Wait, he is really a teacher?  I don’t mean to be rude to him, but that explains a lot!  :wink:

I remember a history teacher of mine who got into a small debate with me on whether or not the Treaty of Versailles was fair to Germany, because Germany “directly caused the war and deserved to pay for it” according to her…

what bizarre history have you been studying?

I read books not written by sides that won the war or ones that pull a: “Raw! Raw! the allies are the good guys…we win again!”

Please read about Raymond Poincaré. He was a proven warmonger who primed France deliberately for the 2-3 years before the 1914 conflict mobilizing his forces to get into a war where France can be back the Alsace Lorraine lost to the OTHER war France started and Lost in 1870. He was a seething french patriot who could not let losing that land go and spent the better part of his career trying to politically isolate the growing Prussian dominance on the continent. Prussian Hegemony was coming by peaceful means because the German people basically worked harder than others to achieve it.

also look at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism

As soon as The Kaisers treaty with the Czar lapsed the French immediately jumped in and snapped up them, knowing the proven issue that Germany was naturally aligned with her ally Austria Hungary out of necessity, and secondly, knowing that the Austrians and Russians had a long standing issue with the Balkans.

The Russians always sought to obtain a warm water port and tried to stir up trouble to exploit it latter all hoping to gain by treaty or outright annexation the territory that would facilitate this access.

Once the Russians who were bound to her treaty went to mobilize against the Austrians, the French who had already mobilized made Germany’s decision a forced outcome, because France wanted to immediately jump in the war which forced the Kaiser to commit to her ally the Austrians and begin the Schliefen Plan. Now remember the French too had their plan 17 so don’t think the Germans just made crafty little plans of conquest.

The mobilization of the Kaiser was basically forced upon by two factors: The Czar ordering full mobilization and the French who were already mobilized for 3 years ready for anything to get started.

After the war Raymond tried to keep his reputation clean by an aggressive stance at Versailles, so that the “French Revenge” could not be repayed at a latter date, and Raymond made sure the “huns” were punished only at the expense of being a loser of a war, but a total clean slate approach of reducing the natural industrial nature of the German people, by removing territory that she would undoubtedly need to again become a major European player. This was the basic approach of french politics in the post war period, because the french themselves knew they cannot any longer become a world power, so the tactic was to deny Germany’s right to become a world power.

IN my opinion thats the most cowardly act possible by deliberately bringing down another nation because you yourself cannot or do not possess the ability to make your nation better. Thats an act of national jealousy and in France it continues today in various proven forms.

@Rakeman:

@03321:

It’s ok, he’s a teacher, he’s allowed to be a nice teacher.

Wait, he is really a teacher?  I don’t mean to be rude to him, but that explains a lot!  :wink:

I remember a history teacher of mine who got into a small debate with me on whether or not the Treaty of Versailles was fair to Germany, because Germany “directly caused the war and deserved to pay for it” according to her…

Thanks for the props, Rakeman and 03321.  I am also a US Army officer, retired for disability incured while serving with the US Army.  I have twice nearly been recalled to active duty, despite my disability, once with the Marines and once with the Defense Intelligence Agency.  My body may not work well, but my brain is still in fine shape.  I spent most of the First Gulf War working for the Marine Corps trying to keep the Marines from taking unnecessary casualties.  Two of the nicer compliments that I received while working for the Marines are: 1) they were very happy that I was working for them and not the Iraqis, and 2) I have a very devious mind when it comes to inflicting damage on people and things.

In the history class that I work with, the students are taught that the Treaty of Versailles was one of the worst peace treaties in history, and pretty much guaranteed that WW2 would occur.  We do cover the events that lead up to WW1, and have the students roleplay the various national leaders making the decisions for war.  I fully agree with those US Naval Officers who assured the treaty negotiators that this was not a treaty but a twenty year truce.  We then have the students role play the various national leaders during the interwar period, and cover the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, including the Italian use of aerial sprayed mustard agent, the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, the various actions by Hitler in systematically breaking the Versailles Treaty, and so on.  We finish the class by having the students play Axis and Allies Classic.  On a fairly regular basis the Axis win, mainly because we have the more experienced students, who have played the game before, play the Axis.  The Allies normally have major problems cooperating.

If by any chance either of you are still a student from the 6th to the 11th grade, and live in the Chicago area, I would welcome you to join the class.  We have been requested to have an adult version of the class, which is under the initial stages of discussion.

As for being a good teacher, I have spent a fair amount of time in the US National Archives studying WW2, ranging from the effects of strategic bombing, including going through the reports on the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the effectiveness of aerial weapons against naval target, to the use of radio intercepts and codebreaking during World War 2.  I have also spent time researching the use by the Japanese from 1937 on of China as a chemical and biological warfare testing area, field testing various techniques of use.  To what extent have either of you studied the treatment by Japanese of their prisoners, or the fact that beheading with a katana was a common fate for Allied aircrew shot down over Japanese-held areas.  Then there was the Japanese building of the Death Railway, distorted by Hollywood into the Bridge over the River Kwai movie.  Or a favorite way for the Japanese to entertain their troops in charge of guarding prisoners, by drenching one of the prisoner holding huts with gasoline, surrounding the hut with troops, lighting the gasoline, and then shooting down the prisoners as they tried to escape the flames.  Given the number of incidences reported, this clearly was a very popular pastime.  And it was also well-known to all of the Allied commanders and combat troops by the occasional prisoner that escaped and was convoyed by Allied guerillas to rescue.  Do you wish me to continue?  I have plenty more where that comes from.  And please, tell me about the number of Axis prisoners slaughtered by the US and the UK, the number that were converted into the main course of lunch and dinner, like quite a few Allied airman were by the Japanese.  Come, come, gentlemen, you have assured the forum that atrocities were committed by both sides.

Ok lets make a thread on this under WW2 History and continue.

I tried to edit his comments out, but somehow you had them.