@andrewaagamer
Ah. I hadn’t understood that subtlety. It’s a bit like assuming that, as an attacker, I’m going to win - so, retreat isn’t an option. Thanks a lot for your help.
Second Thoughts
-
@TG:
7) Perhaps each nation should start with 1 Technology Right off. USA/UK/Japan: Improved Shipyards. Italy/Germany/Russia: Advanced Artillery. Neither is overly powerful, but they’d give the game an added depth. (Think like the optional rule that Germany had Jet Power and Japan Super Submarines in Classic. This is not unprecedented!)
Doable. Though if you head in this direction, I suggest each power should get a more “nation specific” technology. Like USA: Improved Shipyards (or war bonds!), UK: Radar (Ha!), Russia: Advanced Artillery, Germany: Jet Fighters, Japan: Long Range Aircraft, and Italy: a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Seriously, Italy doesn’t deserve tech.
Why? Do you think Italy is already over-powered? Or beacuse Italy is an unnecessary addiction to the game? Or… :?
-
TG:
No, I don’t get out much, I have kids. :)
Battlemap is alive and very well. It was designed for Axis and Allies I believe and I’ve never seen it support other games, but that does not mean it cannot. Theoretically, if you can design the toolpieces and draw a map, you can play any game with it. You might be thinking of Mapview which is a “game module” thing and that, pretty much, is found more often in a few gaming cliques here and there. Popular, but most people who have it also use battlemap.
When i said that SZ 51 and SZ 64 are the keys to Japan I meant for the allies. You refer to SZ’s 50 and 60 which are good for Japan to own for various reasons, (I would also add SZ 37 to your list for Japan, maybe even SZ 38/Sumatra)
Some countries cannot afford to repair SBR. For instance, Russia might take 4 IPC Damage to Karelia, perhaps Russia only has 31 IPC (realistic) so they want 7 Infantry, 2 Armor. They can easily place 2 Infantry, 2 Armor in Caucasus and 5 Infantry in Russia without violating the number of units being built. So why repair Karelia, especially if it appears Germany will take it soon?
As for submarines, I disagree. Mostly speaking, submarines have been made mostly worthless in aniversary. They cannot even be used to stop you from loading transports in the sea zone they are in.
Now, if you plan on using a submarine strategy, they can be useful as an annoyance to Japan, but that’s a limited strategy for a whole technology to be built around, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion.)
So far it’s been my experience when there are no National Objectives to be gained, that England starts with virtualy no navy if in reality no navy. (Destroyer/Transport off the SE Corner of Australia being the only ships left on the board.)
Romulus:
I have to say, Italy is a very under-respected nation. Those of us who respect her adequately enough, try to crush her as fast as possible.
-
@Cmdr:
Romulus:
I have to say, Italy is a very under-respected nation. Those of us who respect her adequately enough, try to crush her as fast as possible.
I agree but just because people do not consider Italy interesting should be included in the “one free tech idea”. It may be the only one possibility for Italy to have a technological improvement! :)
-
Romulus:
…Or beacuse Italy is an unnecessary addiction to the game?
I know English isn’t your first language, but that sentence was LOL. :lol:
While I don’t believe Italy is an unnecessary addition to the game, my statement about Italy “Not deserving any tech” was more tongue-in-cheek.
My point is that Italy was barely in the war – no more than say, China, and no one talks about giving them tech. Plus Italy’s combat record during the war was so wretched and so maligned that they don’t deserve tech.
Contrary to what you guys seem to imply about me, I believe Italy is TOO Powerful in the game. Italy has ridiculous sway protecting Europe (ie France), they’ve taken Stalingrad a number of times, to make no mention of the African juggernaut they can become. It’s so completely atypical of what Italy’s actual service record indicated.
Okay, you could make some of the same arguments about Japan. But even then, did Italy make any great innovations, force any changes in doctrine, or offer any technological improvements? Was any of their equipment spectacularly different? It’s not rhetorical. Maybe you guys can convince me otherwise.
Right now, Italy having units that are equal to the rest of the Powers can already be considered a “tech roll”
CJ:
Battlemap is alive and very well. It was designed for Axis and Allies I believe and I’ve never seen it support other games, but that does not mean it cannot. Theoretically, if you can design the toolpieces and draw a map, you can play any game with it. You might be thinking of Mapview which is a “game module” thing and that, pretty much, is found more often in a few gaming cliques here and there. Popular, but most people who have it also use battlemap.
I was thinking about Mapview then. I can’t speak from experience about Battlemap.
No, I don’t get out much, I have kids.
Mr. Jennifer doesn’t hold the same interest in Axis and Allies as you do? Actually, that may be better for the kids. :)
Some countries cannot afford to repair SBR. For instance, Russia might take 4 IPC Damage to Karelia, perhaps Russia only has 31 IPC (realistic) so they want 7 Infantry, 2 Armor. They can easily place 2 Infantry, 2 Armor in Caucasus and 5 Infantry in Russia without violating the number of units being built. So why repair Karelia, especially if it appears Germany will take it soon?
The better question is: why is Germany in her right mind bombing Karelia? There are so many better targets.
As for submarines, I disagree. Mostly speaking, submarines have been made mostly worthless in aniversary. They cannot even be used to stop you from loading transports in the sea zone they are in.
Submarines have been a vast improvement for us compared to before. Then again, I don’t 50 notches under my belt.
So far it’s been my experience when there are no National Objectives to be gained, that England starts with virtualy no navy if in reality no navy. (Destroyer/Transport off the SE Corner of Australia being the only ships left on the board.)
Commandant Jennifer, could you please inform me about your battlefield strategies on how Germany wipes out UK’s Navy G1?
In 1941 how do you go after the Battleship+Transport in Sz 2, the destroyer+Transport in Sz 9, and the destroyer+cruiser in Sz 12?
The way I see it, you can go after 1 or 2 (if you’re feeling greedy), but not all three. It either comes down to the destroyer+Transport in Sz 9 or the destroyer+cruiser in Sz 12. You cannot have both.
I use to think Sz 9 was better because the odds were better. But after reading repeated AARs about UK sinking Italy’s navy turn 1, I believe the better move is to clear Sz 12.
As for 1942, don’t even get me started about that Cruiser+Transport in the Hudson bay.
-
Italy is a full fledged member. If you give 3 technologies to the allies, then Italy should get one of 3 technologies to the axis, just for balance.
Also, I would limit it to two different technologies instead of six different ones. Easier to track.
I don’t personally go after the British navy with Germany in 1941. Honestly, I use everything I have to obliterate Russians so my tanks can race through at 80mph!
However, I have lost:
- the Destroyer in SZ 6 to the Submarine in SZ 5
- the Destroyer/Transport in SZ 9 to a Submarine in SZ 7
- The Cruiser/Destroyer in SZ 12 to a Submarine in SZ 7 and a Fighter in NW Europe
- The Battleship/Transport in SZ 2 to a Fighter and Bomber (Norway/Germany)
Don’t ask me for the probabilities on all that. I guess odds in SZ 2 would be 1/3 the battleship is sunk first round and very good odds that it’s sunk in the second or third rounds (at least good odds it is sunk with loss of all attackers) The Destroyers and Submarines are both 50/50 shots, they attack/defend at 2 and who ever hits is going to win that. The Cruiser/Destroyer is harder, it’s like 50/50 since 2 units on both sides with same attack/defend capabilities.
No idea. Honestly, I don’t like not using my 5 Aircraft to destroy Ruskies…I’ll break down and use the Bomber at Sea most of the time, but it seems more common to have my German opponents go after the entire English Navy on Round 1 and be conservative against Russia. (Could explain why my Russian tanks end up in Rome so often.)
-
To say that Italy and China were barely in the war is laughable.
China fought the Japanese longer than any Allied nation the Mukden incident in '31 could serve good enough for a starting date. But at the latest '37. China also held up much better than the other vaunted allied forces in Asia. Don’t rely on Larry Harris’s game boards as any true indicator of what Japan actually held in China although AA50 is the closest to reality so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Empire2.pngItaly had the 4th largest Navy in the world at the start of hostilities. As far as ineffective, Force K, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Valiant would probably beg to differ.
-
@TG:
Romulus:
…Or beacuse Italy is an unnecessary addiction to the game?
I know English isn’t your first language, but that sentence was LOL. :lol:
Moses I was feeling like Lt. Cmdr. Data at your answer when I suddenly discover my error! lol! :-D You are right my sentence is quite humorous!
I intended to write addition…
Now I understood. -
Musta been a Freudian Slip, I find Italy quite addictive! Especially when they start earning 40+ mwuhahahaha!
-
To say that Italy and China were barely in the war is laughable.
Go back and reread my post. “My point is that Italy was barely in the war – no more than say, China, and no one talks about giving them tech.” You sir, lose. :wink:
Italy had the 4th largest Navy in the world at the start of hostilities. As far as ineffective, Force K, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Valiant would probably beg to differ.
Meh. I would say the Battle of Taranto reduced Italy navy rather effectively didn’t it? The Royal Navy also seemed more apt to winning the major sea battles in the Mediterranean pre-1943. In any case, 1942/1941 Italy starts off with a respectable navy of 2 Cruisers and 1 Battleship.
-
Can’t give China tech, they don’t get to build units, so what’s the point? No tech would help them, save maybe Jet Fighters, and even then, the dang plane is shot down years before China even gets a turn!
-
Funny the two events I mentioned happened a year AFTER Taranto. This is when Italy had dominance in the central Med and why there starting fleet is the size that it is.
-
Can’t give China tech, they don’t get to build units, so what’s the point? No tech would help them, save maybe Jet Fighters, and even then, the dang plane is shot down years before China even gets a turn!
True. The only equivalent I see is giving China some variation of War Bonds where they roll for infantry.
Funny the two events I mentioned happened a year AFTER Taranto. This is when Italy had dominance in the central Med and why there starting fleet is the size that it is.
True. Though Allied ships sunk by a minefield and by Italian frogman (for lack of a better word) was not what I had in mind when I was thinking of “decisive naval action.” And no, Italy still doesn’t deserve tech.
-
If I had my druthers, I would do the following with China
1) China gets 1 Infantry for every 2 Territories it owns at ANY point that turn (China’s turn, not a game round). These territories are counted at the end of China’s Non-Combat Movement. This at least gives China a bonus for liberating a territory!
2) China collects 1 IPC per territory it owns at the end of its turn. It has no capitol, therefore, it cannot lose it’s treasury. It can, however, build an industrial complex to build units on if it wants too. (Probably a moot point, but the time you get 15 IPC, you won’t have any Chinese territories or units!
Suggested Topics
