Posts made by The Pripet Martian

@SuperbattleshipYamato It’s an intriguing idea. You would have to create rules for weather, wind and rain in particular. The fire can only move/attack in the direction the wind is blowing, for example, and maybe a d8 roll at the beginning of each round determines wind direction? Wind speed could also increase (or decrease) fire movement, construction of fire lines would impede fire movement (unless wind speed was high enough for the fire to ‘jump’ the line)…I don’t know how much of a market there might be for it, but I think there’s a game in there.

@AndrewAAGamer I’m not suggesting players should only buy battleships; I’m just saying they still have value in the game. My personal preference is for a balanced navy. While I still buy 3-4 times more carriers, I like BB for amphibious assaults and to absorb the first hits in any battle.

…And if you’ve never gone up against a misguided player, you really need to meet my friends. :grin:

@AndrewAAGamer @Saber25 This game does a good job of illustrating the rise of the aircraft carrier and corresponding decline of the battleship in WWII. Andrew’s example (9 BB vs. 5 CV & 10 fighters) reinforces the idea. That said, battleships are not the overpriced underachievers one might think, and can be quite dangerous when employed by a savvy admiral.

Take another look at Andrew’s example. It seems BB are no match for CV and fighters, right? In a fight to the death, yes…but if I’m sending 9 BB up against 5 CV + 10 fighters, I’m only going to do so under the following conditions:

1. CV must not be within one space of a friendly territory (so the fighters from damaged carriers have no place to land and must be eliminated), and
2. BB will attack for one round, then retreat.

On average, 9 BB will score 6 hits in the first combat round, while the defenders will score 8. In this scenario, the defender knows he’ll lose 2 fighters for each CV that takes a hit, so his least bad option is to lose 4 fighters and 1 carrier. Meanwhile, my BB absorb the 8 hits without any change to my attack or defense strength and I retreat, safe in the knowledge that with just 6 fighters and 4 carriers, my opponent is unlikely to counterattack.

The moral of the story: Undamaged carriers with aircraft are quite valuable and dangerous, while damaged carriers are essentially overpriced, empty transports. Damaged battleships, on the other hand, are still battleships.

The issue with targeting ANZAC is, for me, an economic one. For Japan to acquire ANZAC’s 10 IPC/turn, they have to capture a total of seven territories. On the other hand, just four territories - Sumatra, Java, Borneo and Celebes - will net 20 IPC/turn for Japan. My alternative to your scenario is this:

J1 Move one transport and one sub from Japan to the Carolines.
J2 Declare war, then use transport + 1 INF from Carolines to take New Guinea. Also take Malaya as soon as possible (these actions deny ANZAC National Objectives, costing them 10 IPC/turn). Use naval forces in Carolines to take out ANZAC fleet.

On subsequent turns, park subs in sea zones 54, 62 and 63. This can reduce ANZAC income to as little as 3 IPC/turn, virtually taking them out of the fight without investing a significant chunk of the Japanese navy, as well as ground forces.

@SS-GEN I can’t remember where I read it, but it’s my understanding that one infantry unit = 25,000 men.

@Mr-Kell It said “Inspired by actual events,” which means, “something somewhat similar to this really happened, but we think our story is better than the truth.” :grin:

Greyhound, Tom Hanks’ adaptation of C.S. Forester’s The Good Shepherd, was originally supposed to be released last March. The wait is almost over: Greyhound hits theaters in North America on June 12. The trailer is below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwmbK3TW1vk

1. This question is rather ambiguous. If you’re attacking with aircraft only (no land units), it’s not an amphibious assault. If you mean, “Can I conduct an amphibious assault without cruisers or battleships for shore bombardment?”, the answer is yes, you can.
2. When conducting an amphibious assault, you have to choose which aircraft will participate in any naval battle and which will participate in the land combat; they cannot do both. Any naval battle must be resolved before amphibious landings can take place.

@ABWorsham4 The more I read, the more I learn that American neutrality pre-Pearl Harbor was extremely nuanced, to say the least. Very interesting stuff.

@crockett36 said in Allied Playbook Draft v1.0:

Less the grab Solomons, Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas. More the 800 ships with a ton of sailors and 10000 marines. The strategic objective part is that you are putting so much pressure on the Japanese navy, fighting, losing, fighting, losing, fighting, winning that they cannot do what they usually do, infect the map like a virus. It’s the piece meal approach of Midway versus the “wait until I get a navy big enough to demolish the IJN.”

This is assuming a non Sealion game. This might look like an invasion of Iwo Jima. Collect a navy there. Get some bombers to harass the island and voila it’s the front line! Waves of metal coming at them every turn, with the advantage that you are able to land on the island and lose the carriers. Subs in reserve to take down the cap ships.

Russia can be assisted by the British because pressure is not as great as it normally is?! Could call it the Nimitz. He wanted to go directly to Japan.

Assuming the Japanese move in predictable ways (into China, SE Asia and the DEI), I like to do a limited island hopping campaign like this:

1. Take the Marshalls. This protects American transports off Hawaii from Japan-based bombers.
2. Take the Carolines. This forces the Japanese to take a more circuitous route to Australia and can be used by the Allies as a springboard to the Philippines, Borneo, FIC or Japan.
3. Take Iwo Jima. Build an air base on it, not for bombers (which don’t need it), but for fighters to protect the American fleet. Stack bombers on Iwo and hit the Japanese IC every turn.

While I’m doing the above, I also gradually build up a good-sized sub fleet to strangle Japan via convoy disruption…and you can usually accomplish steps 1-3 with about 3 fully loaded transports (plus the necessary surface warships, of course).

@ABWorsham4 I’m not familiar with False Flags, but I’ve read Mrs. Ferguson’s Tea Set, Japan and the Second World War: The Global Consequences Following Germany’s Sinking of the SS Automedon in 1940 by Eiji Seki. It’s an excellent account of the exploits of the German commerce raider Atlantis, and I found it fascinating as a Japanese perspective of WWII.

@Krieghund Understood. Great discussion, and thanks for the background information! I think it speaks to the greatness of the Global 1940 game that, ~10 years after publication, we can still have these types of philosophical debates about it.

Now, we can move on to addressing the flawed rules for AAA units… :grin:

@Krieghund I appreciate the explanation and I do understand your reasoning. Your decision is consistent with the rules for friendly neutrals and your desire to avoid “a needless difference in the two procedures” makes sense.

I believe my position to be equally valid, however. Language matters, and “assuming guardianship” remains distinctly different from “converting,” “claiming” or “annexing” friendly neutrals. The existing rules draw a bright line between Dutch territories and neutrals. Why, then, couldn’t the procedure for assuming guardianship of Dutch territories be slightly different? (This is rhetorical, as you’ve clearly stated the reasons why you do not wish the procedures to be different.)

A final consideration: My position has the advantage of remaining consistent with the Pacific 1940.2 rules for Dutch territories, while players must find this thread in order to be aware of your ruling which, while logical and understandable, is in fact an exception to the rule as written.

Again, I appreciate your explanation and reasoning.

@Krieghund said in UK/Anzac AAA convert dutch territories?:

Air units are defensive as well, but they don’t count either. As ksmckay said, this is consistent with the related rules.

Respectfully, I don’t think this is a good comparison. The rules clearly state that air units cannot assume guardianship of the Dutch territories. Likewise, the Pacific 1940.2 rules clearly state that the Dutch territories are not treated as friendly neutrals or hostile territories. While I see the logic in your ruling, @Krieghund, I also believe it to be flawed, as it conflates Dutch territories with friendly neutrals. This is, of course, just one man’s opinion…and, as I’ve already been overruled and lost on appeal, I’ll drop the matter here.

The rules are crystal clear for hostile territories and friendly neutrals. The Dutch territories are in no way friendly neutrals. Pacific 1940.2, p.9 makes it clear that guardianship is altogether different from “annexing” or “converting” friendly neutrals. I refer again to the definition of guardianship and the fact that AAA is a defensive unit. I disagree with Krieghund’s interpretation.

@ksmckay On what, exactly, is @Krieghund’s statement based? The vast majority of situations that arise can be easily resolved, if not by direct reference to a rule, then through inference based on interpretation of a rule. My interpretation is as follows:

1. Is AAA a land unit? Yes.
2. Can it engage in noncombat movement? Yes.
3. Does the latest edition of the rulebook (Pacific 1940.2) say UK or ANZAC cannot use an AAA unit to assume guardianship of Dutch territories? No.

The definition of guardianship is “the position of protecting or defending something.” AAA is a purely defensive unit. Krieghund’s ruling seems to me to be a contradiction, rather than a continuation, of the existing rule.

@Panther I still haven’t see any rule which states that UK or ANZAC may not use a AAA unit to assume guardianship of Dutch territories. It’s a land unit, it moves in during noncombat movement…If there’s a specific rule addressing this, I can’t find it.

@ksmckay I’d never considered using an anti-aircraft unit to take possession of DEI territories, but I don’t see why the rules wouldn’t allow it: AAA is a land unit and you have to move in during non-combat movement to take possession. It seems to me to be a legal move.

Just finished A Hobbit, A Wardrobe and A Great War by Joseph Loconte.

In my youth, I read (and re-read) J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy (and The Hobbit), as well as C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. Loconte’s book taught me that the aforementioned authors’ works were heavily influenced by their experiences in World War One. From descriptions of battle to individual characters, the connections are there. I used to think it curious that, after doing the LOTR and Hobbit movies, Peter Jackson would move on to They Shall Not Grow Old; it now makes perfect sense…And now, I have to re-read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy.

@Argothair Allowing units hit by the shore bombardment to return fire makes sense; after all, German units at Normandy and Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, et al, certainly did.

As for CA & DD pairs vs. BB…The two-hit capability of BB is a significant advantage, but that advantage is partially offset by the 16.5% chance of the CA & DD pair scoring two hits. Also, if your opponent has subs lurking about, CA + DD has an advantage over BB. In the end, at the most basic level of one CA/DD pair vs. one BB, through two rounds of combat, it’s quite close - roughly a 42% chance of CA/DD getting 2 hits, versus 45% for the BB.

That said, CA/DD over BB purchases aren’t for everyone. For powers with smaller economies, such as ANZAC or Italy, or when the UK begins rebuilding the Royal Navy after G1, I think CA/DD is a solid buy.