i have to go over to Larry’s forum to check out the complete conversation, just haven’t made it there yet, only picking up the pieces from here. IL, keep at it, bend him to your will and fix the rest of the problems while you are at it, eh! Good on ya!
Well I can say the Mechanized Infantry and Fighter-Bomber pieces were pushed for many years by direct and indirect means at my disposal and its true if you say something long enough it begins to sink in and take hold. Neutrals were another matter and finally a breakthrough was made by the combined work of many others as well who didn’t like the idea that the design conveniently swept them under a rug and ignored their existence. Lastly, we bugged him for a start date in 1939, but got 1940, which is guess is at least something.
Its a matter of time before we get some other things done that make it more historical.
Yes, victory is within our grasp!
Btw, Larry said the board will be 30"x70". Is that just one half, or the entire board?
each map is 35 x 30
roughly square….interesting
Im still hoping for a south america/south africa excluded map…but the square seems to match up with the pacific ~square
I’m not sure i like the idea of a blockhouse unit. (assuming that it means a unit that fires on everyone during the first turn, like AA does). It is much too powerful, and would ensure that people do not land there.
I like the slow move from defensive style gaming to more offensive styles:
including of Artillery as an effectively 3/2/2/4 unit when used properly
bombers reduced in price to 12
fighters reduced to price of 10
subs reduced in price to 6 and becoming a 2/1/2/6 unit
tanks becoming a 3/3/2/5 unit, which by increasing their defense by 1 meant that people would now actually buy them and thereby have more offensive punch in general from simply having more of them around (in AA classic, people bought close to 100% infantry)
I love the idea of a fighter bomber, effectively 4/3/4/11, when used properly, would give another option for offensive action at sea (and ground too).
I kind of like the idea of mech infantry as a 1/2/2/4 unit, which obviously would be built for offensive action to reach the front, but does not have the attack power to be much more than a hit soaker. I would much more hope that there could be a 2/2/2/4 unit instead, or that the mech inf could bring art with them when coupled 1:1, or that since tanks are being increased to 3/3/2/6, we now need a 3/1/2/5 unit or something.
I disagree with the idea of purely offensive unit. This game has too much defense already with infantry costing so little (their attack and defense rolls are perfect, but the fact that they cost 3ipc per hit point makes them the best unit in the game by far. tanks will soon cost 6ipcs per hit point, which is horrible. hit points are a stat that is not looked at enough)
Blockhouse does not move its defensive only. It makes alot of sence to have something that gives a sting against landing troops hitting 33% for 8 IPC. Its a great defense and the damage it does perfectly models the fear the allies had about landing against a properly built up defense. Germany never did complete this proper defense, but having this unit makes somebody think twice about a “raid” vs a real invasion and stops the idea of taking france 50 times a game just to collect income for both sides.
Plus how do you think the Maginot line is going to be represented? The Siegfried line?
@Imperious:
Blockhouse does not move its defensive only. It makes alot of sence to have something that gives a sting against landing troops hitting 33% for 8 IPC. Its a great defense and the damage it does perfectly models the fear the allies had about landing against a properly built up defense. Germany never did complete this proper defense, but having this unit makes somebody think twice about a “raid” vs a real invasion and stops the idea of taking france 50 times a game just to collect income for both sides.
Plus how do you think the Maginot line is going to be represented? The Siegfried line?
i think it would do exactly the opposite of what you intend
instead of forcing the allies to attack with overwhelming forces, you are actually forcing them to either attack with as few as possible or not attack at all.
if i attacked with overwhelming forces of 10 tanks and 10 infantry, against say just 1 infantry and 1 blockhouse unit, then you would get to roll a 2 against all 20 of my land units, even though all you have is just 1 inf and 1 blockhouse.
how about this instead:
blockhouse units: after shorebombard fires a 2 out of 6 for each defending infantry, up to 4 times, during first round of combat only. Any casualties still get their casualty shots just like ShoreBombarding. (defender still gets to choose casualties, multiple blockhouses require additional defending infantry, ie: if the germans have 6 infantry and 2 blockhouses in france, then the blockhouses would fire a grand total of 6 times. if you had 10 infantry and 2 blockhouses, the blockhouses would fire a grand total of 8 times)
my version is not dependent on the number of people attacking, and so if i attack with 2 tanks against a blockhouse being manned by 2 infantry, then you could wipe out my invasion force first round. This gives me an incentive to bring more units, while your version gives me an incentive not to bring more units.
[the numbers could change, it could be a 1 out of 6 for the defense, or it could be 3 inf it gets paired with, or it could cost 10 ipcs, etc. its the concept that is different]
I still disagree even with my version though, because i don’t think we need any more emphasis on defense than there already is.
i think it would do exactly the opposite of what you intend
instead of forcing the allies to attack with overwhelming forces, you are actually forcing them to either attack with as few as possible or not attack at all.
if i attacked with overwhelming forces of 10 tanks and 10 infantry, against say just 1 infantry and 1 blockhouse unit, then you would get to roll a 2 against all 20 of my land units, even though all you have is just 1 inf and 1 blockhouse.
I played it out and i find that players will attack with lots of forces, because after the first round the defender gets crushed, while a smaller force the large change would occur in losing even 1-2 units from this unit, but if you got 20 pieces, and lose say 6, you still got 14 units to do the job, while if you land 6 units and lose 2 you are not gonna take it if the defender has anything to back it up.
I could suggest one thing however, the blockhouse only works against infantry at 2 and all other landing units at 1?
Soft targets are so much more easy to wipe out with the various defenses symbolized by this unit.
so basically, i could just have 1 blockhouse unit in the territory, nothing else…. and i could deal you 40 ipcs of damage…
you should make it stop throwing dice after a certain number of units, that will be an incentive to bring more than that number of units
have it stop firing after like 6 units
But it’s simple: if Normandy only has a blockhouse as defense and nothing more, just unload 4 infs in attack phase (to ensure at least one survive) and later unload the big pack in non combat moves :-D
so basically, i could just have 1 blockhouse unit in the territory, nothing else…. and i could deal you 40 ipcs of damage…
Potentially yes if you land 120 IPC worth of pieces (40 infantry losing 13) and hit at 33%, but also potentially nothing at all and 8 IPC wasted because they land somewhere where you don’t have a blockhouse,
what price would a unit hitting at 2 or less on the first round cost in an AA game? Everything has its price and hitting at 1 is insufficient sting. should it cost 10 IPC or 12 IPC?
One day, we’ll have:
Collect money at start of turn (no silly double pay-outs)
Ships in port preventing early naval wipeouts
No use of captured factories
Unlimited rail movement in non-combat
Capitals treated as any other territory
Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact
Correct roundels for each country
It’ll still be Axis and Allies.
It just won’t be Larry Harris’s Axis and Allies.
@Imperious:
Well I can say the Mechanized Infantry and Fighter-Bomber pieces were pushed for many years by direct and indirect means at my disposal and its true if you say something long enough it begins to sink in and take hold. Neutrals were another matter and finally a breakthrough was made by the combined work of many others as well who didn’t like the idea that the design conveniently swept them under a rug and ignored their existence. Lastly, we bugged him for a start date in 1939, but got 1940, which is guess is at least something.
Its a matter of time before we get some other things done that make it more historical.
Collect money at start of turn (no silly double pay-outs)
Ships in port preventing early naval wipeouts……AGREED
No use of captured factories…AGREED
Unlimited rail movement in non-combat…AGREED, NEED RAILWAYS ON MAP
Capitals treated as any other territory…??
Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact…AGREED
Correct roundels for each country…AGREED, I HAD IL FIX MY MAP FOR ME WITH CORRECT ROUNDELS.
OK the blockhouse with the values that i describe…how much ? Everything must have a cost. original cost is 8 IPC, but perhaps 10, 12?
One day, we’ll have:
Collect money at start of turn (no silly double pay-outs) –- Why? I don’t see the point in collecting at the beginning of the turn. I hate defensive games, and providing IPCs for territories you capture during your turn makes the game a more offensive oriented game. I don’t agree
Ships in port preventing early naval wipeouts — Ships in port should be easier to destroy. Pearl Harbor anyone? Ships gathered in port can not move well, can not evade bombs, clog with other ships, create traffic jams, and when sunk, create huge obstacles in the port that prevent the port from being used by other ships. Not to mention that you have a ton of ships all gathered in one nice easy small place to hit with your torpedo bombers and dive bombers. I think ports should have a free AA gun, but that the ships in the port should roll their defense at 1 less than normal (and they should cost 10% discount to rebuild after they are sunk). so I disagree again.
No use of captured factories — I think factories should have the option to be destroyed by your own forces. Give them 2 hit points, and allow friendly forces to target them during battle or as an attack. I disagree again.
Unlimited rail movement in non-combat — unlimited is a lot. I think all units should get 1 extra move during non-combat within friendly territories that are connected by railroads.
Capitals treated as any other territory — There should be some advantage to taking a capital, but the current advantage is far to big. Perhaps something like this: Instead of capturing all their IPCs, you instead destroy half their IPCs (and the other half remain with the player who just lost their capital), and you can continue to build units but you can not collect income until liberated.
Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact — This isn’t diplomacy, this is Axis and Allies played on the entire globe. Totally disagree
Correct roundels for each country — don’t really care, as long as they are similar enough i’m fine with it
RE: IL, since they are firing at 2 out of 6, they should cost double what an AA gun costs since AA guns fire at 1 out of 6 and cost 6 ipcs, therefore blockhouses should cost 12. I also think that when they are captured they should be destroyed, unlike AA guns that are still useful against the enemy, blockhouses will be pointed the wrong way and are immobile concrete structures after they are set in place. (how silly it would be if Germany capture the maginot line and then moves it to Normandy, or the Allies capture Normandy and move it with their front all the way into germany…)
RE: IL, since they are firing at 2 out of 6, they should cost double what an AA gun costs since AA guns fire at 1 out of 6 and cost 6 ipcs, therefore blockhouses should cost 12. I also think that when they are captured they should be destroyed, unlike AA guns that are still useful against the enemy, blockhouses will be pointed the wrong way and are immobile concrete structures after they are set in place. (how silly it would be if Germany capture the maginot line and then moves it to Normandy, or the Allies capture Normandy and move it with their front all the way into germany…)
I think 12 is an acceptable number for blockhouses, though if comparing the price and function to AA guns then 10 might be better, as Veqryn said, they can’t be turned around and used by a capturing army, hence slightly less use than an AA gun equalling slightly lower price.
If Germany would recapture the French coast they would have to restock the bunkers with arms again as well as repair the blockhouses I think the destruction of blockhouse when captured would be believable enough as well.
@Imperious:
I could suggest one thing however, the blockhouse only works against infantry at 2 and all other landing units at 1?
Soft targets are so much more easy to wipe out with the various defenses symbolized by this unit.
that’s certainly workable as well. Would definitely entice people to bring along some armor when landing.
Collect money at start of turn (no silly double pay-outs)
when did these games get money? I know in my old age that memory fades, but I thought they had printed on the paper, worth like 1 million man hours of production. That being said, it should definitely be changed to collecting for everyone at the end or beginning of the round, being realistically the same thing. Then you take something in mind of being able to hold it to get any added production income.
Ships in port preventing early naval wipeouts
I’m with Verqryn on this, ducks in a barrel
No use of captured factories
I’d be with this except for that Germany often used captured factories to keep building weapons in Eastern Europe…though much of that became Axis-aligned countries, which muddies the waters like Neutrals will become, so I’m interested to see how the Minor/Major aspect comes into play with it… at least a big step forward
Unlimited rail movement in non-combat
then we need a way to specifically target rail lines for destruction… otherwise Japan will use it right up the Soviets keister all too well
Capitals treated as any other territory
the big thing is not losing your production capability due to the loss of one’s capital. You should keep the IPCs, be able to build a new IC at another owned territory or build at another one you already have and fight on despite the loss of the capital. Use capitals as victory cities sure, but they generally rob focus of VCs as you take out the enemy’s ability to produce and then mop up the VCs.
Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact
if you have this, you have to have the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and none of us want that now do we?
On the blockhouse issue I think that you should have to select which border they are defending and once placed are immovable, and yes a coastline is just another border.
Yes right. Blockhouse is now a 12 IPC unit firing at 2 or less in opening combat phase at all land units.
If used in normal combat your defending land units are all +1 in combat.
Takes one hit and cant be captured.
