Posts made by cb4

I don’t have the space to keep a game setup for months and I can’t play every week. If I could, though, I would surely want to play this game. You guys deserve congratulations and encouragement for such a major undertaking 8-) :-D :-D 8-)

I never just use one review and, after seeing one for $300, couldn’t help looking – plus, I’m an information junkie :-D

For $460, this is the newest version of the best-rated 3d printer design on all3dp.com (the original version is European): https://wanhaousa.com/products/duplicator-i3-plus-steel-frame

Better look before you leap:
https://3dprint.com/167487/learning-curve-for-beginners/

A 2-hour distraction :roll:  Now back to work… -sigh-

Here’s a recent review of 3D printers. One for under $300 was an Editor’s Choice.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470038,00.asp

Let us know how it goes!

You are right, my math was off too, can’t use averages with escorts. Here’s a table created from my spreadsheet for raiding sub vs. escorts with +2 modifiers. I shortened it because creating a table was a hassle, no copy/paste :-(

| raider roll - escort roll

| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |

| # ways

| 5 |
| 4 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| 1 |

| expected IPP loss

| 0.14 |
| 0.22 |
| 0.25 |
| 0.22 |
| 0.14 |
| 0.98 |

|

The 2nd col is how many ways the raider minus escort roll can equal the 1st col (i.e. only 1 way to lose 5 from raiding: raider rolls 6, escort rolls 1). There is a 2.8% chance (0.17 * 0.17) for any combination of 2 rolls on a d6. The last column is the 1st col times 2nd col times 2.8%. So when both sides have +2 modifiers, the average IPP loss/turn/sub is 0.98, close enough to 1. If I understood you, it looks like we agree (you originally said 1.6, then said that was too high by 0.6-0.7). By the same method, I calculated 1.56 for 1 escort.  This is for no escorts returning fire.

If escorts get even one return fire, that loses Germany 3.3 IPP/turn for 2 DD escorts. The only way raiding can be profitable for the Axis is against unprotected convoy lines. So keep on raiding and hope your opponent doesn’t read this post.

@Warwick:

What good does it do to add a Plan Z with 8 new ships types when you can accomplish the same outcome more efficiently with the basic unit types.

I agree with you but I can see how having the real pieces would be cool. My son is a military history expert. If he had unlimited funds, he’d replace every generic piece in the game  :-D

I like the idea but it sounds like you already answered your question w.r.t. Russian defense. We don’t have those units, but here are a couple of comments…

@Warwick:

My biggest concern was adding attrition style kills (armored cars cost 3 IPP same as INF) to a blitzing stack so I included a caveat that they cannot be taken as casualties until the end of combat.

I get it - saving the med armor casualties for last makes blitzing significantly more powerful than it already is. I like to have at least a somewhat realistic basis when adding rules (helps me remember them). For this one, I would say that the support vehicles are slower than tanks, so end up behind them by the time they get to a battle. It would be awesome  8-) if that were true in real life. I’m not familiar with those units, though, so can’t say.

@Warwick:

2 Medium tanks to blitz with a 6 unit force

This seems pretty OP. What about limiting med tanks to 2 support vehicles and light tanks to 1 support vehicle. If that’s still too much, then limit to 1 support per med tank and 0 per light tank. To see which provides better balance would require some trial runs or an analysis of the 36 and 39 setups for Germany and Russia.

After doing a more detailed analysis, I have amended my position – raiding is totally broken. I will use two flaws in your analysis to prove it.

@Warwick:

With 2 escort on a line a sub will still produce 1.6 IPC of damage, 1 escort is 2 IPC, while 0 produces 2.9 IPC damage. If one escort gets to fire the numbers move to 2 escort - -0.1 IPC … 1 Escort - 0.5 IPC … 0 Escort 2.9 IPC damage

The first problem is that these calculations are not correct. The average die roll for a d6 is (1 + 7) / 2 = 3.5. Since the same +2 modifier applies to one sub and to 2 escorts, the average raiding rolls will be zero (3.5+2 - 3.5+2 = 0, from my 1st post). For 1 escort the average loss is (3.5 + 2) - (3.5 + 1) = 1/turn/sub; for no escorts it’s 5.5/turn/sub. Since 2 escorts or 1 aircraft on CAP completely nullify a sub’s modifier, if Germany could raid with 1,000 subs then the average raiding loss will still be zero. With escorts returning fire on every raider, 1 CAP fighter will sink 500 of those subs. Ridiculous! Limiting escorts to one shot will still cause German losses of at least 2.5 IPC/turn (fighter 50% chance to hit * 5 IPC/sub). Subs can’t attack fighters, so there’s almost nothing Germany can do about it!

@Warwick:

The UK to cover the 7 atlantic convoy spaces require… the entire DD force the Brits possess plus one
Torpedo Boat… 124 IPC of naval forces tied down in the Atlantic

The intent of the rules (p.77) is to spread the British out, just as you described in your scenario. But doing so is a big mistake and totally unnecessary. One escort protects the entire convoy line. In fact, escorts in only 2 sea zones (21 & 79) will eliminate all raiding losses in the Atlantic and the Med. Just 20 IPC (2 fighters on CAP), not the 124 IPC of navy you suggested, is all the investment needed. And with their navy freed up from escort duty/protection, the Brits can force Germany into an IPC loss for every raid. You showed that the Brits cannot protect 7 convoy spaces and I agree, but now we know they don’t have to. Plus, CAP aircraft can refuse to engage surface ships, so the Axis will have to send planes to sz21 (not gonna happen) and sz79 (more doable but still not easy).

In summary, the current raiding implementation cannot cause Allied losses if escorts are used correctly nor does it force the British to spread its forces out to protect convoy lines. Raiding is broken because:

• 1. the d6 raiding roll is subtracted from the same d6 escort roll
• 2. escort modifiers easily cancel out raider modifiers
• 3. each escort gets a defensive fire roll against all raiders
• 4. limiting defensive fire to one roll/escort only solves problem 3, but that’s not enough to fix raiding

One last comment about this part of your analysis:
@Warwick:

The Axis builds an airbase in Normandy.
The Axis station 2 Medium Bombers and 2 Ftr. Required IPC 21 with 21 existing Air IPC being committed to this operation.
The Axis station Ftr/Float Planes/Medium Bombers on Sardina 2 or so. 11 IPC required.
The Axis builds 3 Subs per turn to support Atlantic operations….

the German Player is spending 15 IPC to attack the Atlantic… Since the German player generally has 45 to 55 points after the Fall of France this is trivial to maintain.

There are several costs in your list that are ignored when you conclude that it will only take “15 IPC to attack the Atlantic” per turn. The costs for units already on the board have to be taken into account. Why? It’s called the opportunity cost. If not allocated to help kill escorts (or whatever), these units would’ve had the ‘opportunity’ to do damage elsewhere. Since some of the costs are one-time and some are per-turn, you have to convert one to the other. Total one-time costs are the airbase = 10 and 6 aircraft = 63. Total per-turn cost is 3 subs = 15. The real cost to attack the Atlantic for 5 turns is (10 + 63 + (15 * 5))/5 = 29.6 IPC/turn; for 10 turns it’s 22.3/turn. That’s roughly half of the German per turn income which I would not call “trivial”.

Only tried the railways expansion so far…

I didn’t want to hijack this thread with all the secondary (but important) discussion about wartime income and declaring war.

[Announcer says in a deep voice] We now return to our original programming…

I am intrigued by Refusing the Dragon with a 1939 start and I think it is viable.

The 39 start gives Japan three (Nanking, Tai-Yuan, Henan) of the six wartime ‘bonus’ territories and a pretty good number of units (16 total) on the mainland. But the KMT has 10 units and the CCP has 11 units bordering those territories. In the spirit of “refusing” to engage the Chinese, Option 1 is to migrate troops north into a stiff defensive line (Henan, Tai-Yuan, Shanxi) and swap Nanking for Peking. That’s a net +1 IPC for Japan and +2 for (most likely) the KMT, with an overall swing of -1 against Japan. At some point, though, these will have to be reinforced. To delay that and do more refusing, go with Option 2 instead and dig in at the Tai-Yuan/Shanxi line. That’s a net -3 IPC for Japan and (likely) +2 for both KMT and CCP for an overall -7 IPC swing. Finally, Option 3 would do the least “refusing” and create the longest defensive line (Henan, Tai-Yuan, Shanxi, and Zhejiang). It would also generate the most income, with +7 for Japan and -2 for the KMT (an overall swing of +9), but require the most resources to maintain.

With nothing else to do, hopefully the KMT and CCP will go at it and exhaust themselves in the process. Worst-case, though, is if they decide instead to build up their forces. This would necessitate Japanese reinforcements to maintain a stalemate along the established defensive line. The required investment would be 11 IPCs for Option 1 (less $$ but start sooner) or 16 IPCs for Option 2 (more $$ but start later). I skipped calculating the investment for Option 3 because it depends how the opposing forces are concentrated. Much of the necessary investment can be made up in the USSR, with 9 IPC available from all eastern USSR territories. As has been said, this would have to be well-coordinated with Germany. Alternatively, go south for Netherlands gold – 11 IPCs total including bonuses.

From an IPC standpoint, how do the Options compare to the opposite strategy i.e. refusing to refuse the dragon? Let’s call it the “Swallowing the Dragon” strategy. I did it in my first game and was quite successful. It starts before Japan’s first move by signing the Japanese-Soviet Non-aggression Pact. This frees up units in Manchuria to go south. Next, kill the KMT and make sure they can’t buy artillery. I mobilized every available land unit and the entire Japanese air force against the KMT. I took the other three ‘bonus’ territories (Peking, Zhejiang, Guangxi) and Yunan by T2. That effectively ended any immediate KMT threat, though I still needed to reinforce my position against the 11 CCP units. To finish things off in short order (and prepare for an overland invasion of the FEC), I placed two minor ICs in China at the end of T2. All totalled, that’s  a +10 IPC gain over Option 1, +13 over Option 2, but only +4 over Option 3. Japan can make similar IPC gains by Refusing the Dragon, but it will take longer than 2 turns.

From a political standpoint, Refusing the Dragon will have significant consequences over Swallowing the Dragon. If Japan goes north, it’s at war with Russia. If it goes south, it’s at war with the British Commonwealth (BC) and France. All are major powers. There is an additional complication that must be planned for. If Japan goes north, Germany must not take the Netherlands. Otherwise, the FEC (or Anzac) will get 9 additional IPCs per turn for the Dutch East Indies. If Japan goes south, Germany has to wait until Japan has possession of most of the DEI so that the FEC (or Anzac) doesn’t get much additional income when Germany takes the Netherlands. Swallowing the Dragon, on the other hand, has no significant consequences. Neither the BC nor the US can declare war on Japan until Japan declares war “on another nation during the game”. France is the exception. It can declare against Japan but has to pay 10 IPCs to do it (half its per turn income). Not that it would matter. France isn’t any kind of threat to Japan.

Refusing the Dragon can work with a 39 start, but I agree with Warwick that against strong players it will be difficult to pull off. Still, I especially like the idea of going north and ‘sticking it’ to Russia. And I look forward to trying it because it’s my style of play – all in one way or another.

Hey, no worries :-)

It seems logical enough so I don’t think it was an oversight. In fact, by allowing the exact scenario you brought up, it adds some flexibility to the game.

@Whitshadw:

Does that mean the Warlords do not Align?

There are no Warlords in 1939 per the KMT National Ref Sheet under Wartime Income for 1939: “The KMT has aligned all warlords”. Also, any Warlord territory with troops is listed under the Nationalist China 1939 Setup chart. That made sense to use because of how alignment works i.e. each Warlord ceased to “exist as a separate country” when they aligned with the KMT.

@Whitshadw:

What about for example if in the 1936 Set up the CCP take control of Taiyuan… the Warlords do not align correct?

Correct.

@Whitshadw:

Then Japan declares war on the CCP… Can Japan [attack the CCP] without having declared war on the KMT and also [without] having the Warlords Align?

Yes. The KMT and CCP are at war so they don’t care about each other. And only an attack “on a Warlord or the KMT” will align the Warlords because only that kind of attack counts as “an attack on China”.

We disagree about the existence of a governing principle w.r.t. wartime income, but that’s ok. When HBG weighs in, they will either affirm it or not. If not, then your wording of “different conditions” should be adopted along with other clarifications.

Thanks for your shenanigan scenario - made my day!
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Agreed – we need v1.3.

Nicely put! You hit the nail on the head from a historical perspective.

When we were on our A&A G40 kick, no one ever wanted to play Russia so we were forced to rotate. I would hate to see Italy become the new Russia. Then again, unless you can get 6 people to play it doesn’t matter  :-D

I think that ‘Can Declare War on’ table is primarily diplomatic, not military. The USSR is diplomatically capable of declaring war as early as January 39. But if the world is still a friendly place to them, their economy isn’t geared up for war so overrides diplomacy and won’t allow it. If nothing else happens to make the world dangerous (like an attack by Germany) then, on average, they’ll be at 46 IPP by then end of 1941.

We both agree that the whole issue of convoys, escorts, and raiding is very complex and that the existing rules are unbalanced. My proposed changes go farther than just limiting escorts to one roll. Maybe they go too far and create unbalance in the other direction – I don’t know. Only testing will tell.

But after such good discussion, I think I will start with only 2 changes:

1. an escort must be in the same sea zone as a raiding sub to fire on it
2. the escort gets only one defense roll even if multiple subs are raiding in its sea zone

Here’s my last attempt to convince you about #1. In the notes about raiding and escorting (p.77), HBG says twice that the intent of the rules was to force Britain to “spread her ships out along the convoy lines” for escort duty rather than concentrating them into “a large attack force”. Allowing a DD to fire on a sub not in its SZ directly undermines this stated intent.

The Brits aren’t limited to 2 carriers and Germany cannot spend 15 IPP per turn for very long and still expect to win the land war. There are just too many variables to determine a ‘realistic’ sub kill rate for the Brits and I don’t think it’s necessary, anyway. If the Brits dedicate more ships as escorts, the escorts themselves will have the opportunity to sink additional subs beyond the initial 2 per turn.

Although it’s not explicitly stated, the governing principle is that a nation must reach its wartime income to declare war. This is supported in Note 14 (p.76) of v1.2 rules:

“The process of coming to war is represented by nations gearing up their military spending and production…”

I think the problem with Japan is that its wartime income for the 1936 start should be 16. That would clear up all the confusion and make the declaring war rule consistent for all nations. And it would make 1936 Japan exactly the same as 1936 Germany i.e. its starting income = its wartime income. The other option is that something is missing from Japan’s peacetime bonus income table that would allow it to get to 22.

I posted this as a question on HBG’s site. I’ll post the answer here as soon as I get it.

Totally agree Italy must not lose Rome, especially with the current rule of losing all Italian units. But does this reduce the flexibility that Italy has to pursue different strategies? If so, that may provide the Allies with a strategic advantage in the Mediterranean.

Why do you think that raiding is “without risk” to the sub? All other combat rules still apply, so the Allies can send a light carrier and destroyer to take out the sub if they don’t want it raiding.

How does being an escort endanger a DD any more than not being one?

I am concerned about physical positions for good reason. We all want rules that are plausibly based in reality. When rules do that, they make more sense, are easier to remember, and make this historical war simulation we call a ‘game’ more fun.

As you said, the convoy-escort-raider process is a complex operation. Multiple convoys are going/coming along the convoy line all the time. If only one DD is assigned escort duty for 25% of the line (1 sea zone out of 4 between Nova Scotia and England), it is logical to conclude that convoys have no escort over the other 75%. [In fact, not all convoys had escorts until the end of 1942.] So it doesn’t matter if the DD knows where the convoys are going to be – it can’t protect them outside of its own area of patrol (sea zone). FYI by late 1942, the tactic of chasing a sub with ships had become standard practice. See the historical account of Captain John Walker http://www.historynet.com/captain-frederick-john-walker-royal-navys-german-u-boat-menance.htm.

I like HBG’s idea of convoy lines, escorts, and raiders. It just needs some help. Maybe I went too far on the side of raiders – have to try it and see. If you think escorts need a shot against raiders for balance, keep everything as it is but allow an escort only one shot against its nearest raider. Multiple shots makes escorts OP.