Posts made by MacNaughton

MacNaughton · May 25, 2012, 12:29 AM

But for the sake of game mechanics, it is important that we say that Germany “liberates” Rome. Also, for the sake of game mechanics, we can only take historical accuracy so far. Which means that if Rome is liberated by Germany, then we pretend that all the Italian territories all over the board will be perfectly happy to come back under the rule of Italy no matter the actual feeling of those people in actual history.

MacNaughton · May 24, 2012, 2:02 AM

@Make_It_Round:

Thanks for the interesting case study, MacN…

However, the liberation of Rome would not change the pro-Allied status of the units in Tobruk in the example you cite.

(They would be lost forevermore to the Italians.)

The rules for the recapture of a capital are not affected by the new rules I propose regarding a capital falling.

So if I lose Rome, and subsequently more territories due to them becoming pro-allied, the only way I can regain those territories is through military take-over. Correct? On that same note: if Germany or Japan conquers those pro-allied territories that used to be Italian after Rome has been liberated, do they become Italian as a liberated territory or do they go to the conquering nation?

MacNaughton · May 22, 2012, 4:54 PM

Have you thought about what should happen if a capital is liberated? Do all units and territories revert back to their original owner or do they stay neutrol pro-enemy territories and units? What if they become neutral pro-you territories?
Say Rome is captured and Tobruk becomes pro-allied neutral. If Rome is liberated Tobruk could become a pro-axis neutral. All that income and those units stay immobile until an Axis unit can get them back into the infrustructure.

MacNaughton · May 16, 2012, 6:56 PM

@Gargantua:

Are none of you guys playing with the current rules?

for each suface ship roll 1d6, for each sub or fighter roll 2d6, (Aircraft Carriers don’t roll dice)

if you roll 1, 2, or 3,Â do 1, 2, or 3 damage.Â Â if you roll 4, 5, or 6,Â you do none.

I love it when the actual rules are better than any suggested house rules.

MacNaughton · May 15, 2012, 9:35 PM

@Der:

@MacNaughton:

@Der:

I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?

You change the game at a foundational level when you start creating deployments that have nothing to do with your economy.

But using that reasoning why don’t we have to pay for the gas when we move our armor? Or pay for the bombs we use in strategic bombing?Â Or pay to fix battleships and carriers?

Because paying to upkeep a unit is different than paying to deploy a unit or build a facility.

MacNaughton · May 10, 2012, 2:26 PM

@Der:

I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?

Because this game is both strategic and economic. And those two aspects are absolutely linked. All of your economic advantages are dependant on your strategic maneuvers. And all your deployments that enable your strategic maneuvers are dependant on your economic strength. It is the principle by which the game is balanced at the start and the principle by which nations gain the momentum toward victory.
You change the game at a foundational level when you start creating deployments that have nothing to do with your economy.

MacNaughton · May 9, 2012, 10:11 PM

A graduated cost- Now there’s a good idea!

MacNaughton · May 8, 2012, 11:05 PM

@Make_It_Round:

@MacNaughton:

I don’t think that we need to limit the # of entrenchment counters on a territory. Why not?

Well, we can only build 1 entrenchment counter per territory per round, to a limit of 3 territories. The game rarely lasts even eight rounds, so I wager that we’ll never experience the nightmare scenario of facing +20 entrenchment counters when attacking Moscow. Maybe three to five, but rarely more.

Best,

M_I_R

I agree with you completely. I mentioned +20 trench counters in Moscow as the justification for limiting the number of trenches placed per turn (like you suggested).
Also, I wasn’t thinking that Moscow itself would ever have 20 trenches. The Germans have to move through 3 territories before they get to Moscow. Depending on how the trench rule is limited they could have to fight through a large number of trenches before killing any Moscow units.

MacNaughton · May 6, 2012, 1:20 PM

I’m with M_I_R. It should cost 1 IPC to build a trench, infantry building a trench should not be allowed to move on that turn, you can only build 1 trench in a territory in a turn, and you cannot build more three trenches in a turn.
In addition to this, I think that territories should be limited to the total trench value they can have. It would ruin the game for USSR to invest heavily in trenches and force the Germans to get through 20 soak kills before they can kill a single unit in Moscow. Here some suggestions toward that limitation.
1. A territory’s trench value cannot exceed the number of infantry in it. This is tricky. What happens if infantry move out of the territory? Does limiting it this way get rid of the point of heavily defending a territory with minimal infantry? How are the Pacific islands ever going to be well entrenched?
2. A territory’s trench value cannot exceed 3. This one is plain and simple. But, once again, does this ruin the point of the trench rule?
3. A territory’s trench value cannot exceed its IPC value. I like this one the most. It is simple, and it uses the relative importance of a territory as its own moderator concerning its defensability. Capitals have greater infustructure, therefore can be more readily defending with things like trenches. The downside of this is that Gibralter was specifically named as needing trenches, but wouldn’t be able to have any with this rule.

MacNaughton · Mar 30, 2012, 6:32 PM

Paris fell quickly.
As I said, I didn’t play too long. Austria-Hungary started making moves into Russia and Italy well. The Ottomans took Egypt and looked good to start taking the rest of Africa. Italy didn’t have much to begin with and wasn’t going to last very long. All-in-all, it isn’t hard for the Central Powers to dominate mainland Europe. It is simply a matter of if they can keep USA and UK from landing.

MacNaughton · Mar 29, 2012, 8:18 PM

I played through a couple rounds on my own, but I made a few changes. I got rid of the Pacific board altogether in order to lessen the Allied powers total income and eleminate their opportunity to gain even more unchallenged income from the Pacific board. I think that was a good decision.

I didn’t use the Western France space. That seemed to make France too easy a push-over for the Germans. One thing I did like, however, is that Germany seems to start with two options that both seem reasonably possible- take Paris or take London.

The UK and Russian navies got blown fairly easily, but I think that was dice more than an imbalance.

While I didn’t play long enough, it seemed to be that the Central Powers have the advantage in the beginning having opportunity to take France, Italy, and African territories, but eventually the US, UK, and Russian economies will dominate if the Central Powers don’t work fast enough…you know, like most Axis and Allies games.

It is a fun variant. Thanks, Empireman.

MacNaughton · Mar 27, 2012, 3:12 AM

Where is Tanganska? I can’t find it on the board.

MacNaughton · Mar 26, 2012, 6:48 PM

Thanks very much for this. I’m excited to try it out.

MacNaughton · Mar 24, 2012, 3:07 AM

@empireman:

I have on the G40 board. Do you want the rules and Setup?

Yes, please!

MacNaughton · Mar 23, 2012, 8:58 PM

Has anyone made a WWI Variant? I’ve tried searching but have yet to find one.

MacNaughton · Mar 18, 2012, 4:04 PM

Couple that with sending any surviving ground units at Northern Italy, and grouping all aircraft you can at Gibralter or Morocco, and you’ll be making things a lot easier for the USA to crush Italy by turn 5.

MacNaughton · Mar 18, 2012, 3:59 PM

Some navy sounds like a good idea. You could drop three subs in the mediteranean to slow Italy big time.

MacNaughton · Mar 5, 2012, 8:10 AM

Apparently Star Trek is more realistic than any of us ever expected…

MacNaughton · Mar 5, 2012, 2:30 AM

Same for naval units?

MacNaughton · Mar 4, 2012, 6:57 PM

So for ground units, roughly 2 ifantry per other unit?

Posts made by MacNaughton

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Squirecam Witt G42 (Axis +6)

1914 Game 17: Simon as Germany, PP as Austria and nasty Witt as Turkey.

L24 PTV Adam514 (Axis+13) vs GeneralDisarray (Allies)

L24 PtV 666 (alliex) vs Nikola1975 (axis +11)

Lebowsky (Axis) vs Simon33 (Allies+0) French Rebalance Game III

L25 PtV Playoff - 2024 rd1. Adam v 666 (axis +12)

L25 PtV FlyingBadger (Axis+8) vs Zarhunter (Allies) #1

L25 PTV - Stucifer (X+11) v 666 (Allies)

45

17.6k

40.2k

1.7m