Easiest way to counter Japanese Subs is to have Karl Stromberg tour the Pacific…then the answer becomes how do you counter Stromberg subs?
Ok…so nobody picked up or cared enough on “The Spy that Loved Me” reference…boo… :-P
If it makes you feel better, I nearly commented on it the first time you posted it.
Damn you rock! What happen to Spock? And per the rules, you can use fire, but only once in your life…(Friends)
Spock may disintegrate Rock, but Paper covers Rock AND disproves Spock!
Here is a 1941 setup for A&A Global: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6834
I have it set up on my table right now, and it looks pretty sweet. It’s set up for Barbarossa & Pearl Harbor, which lets you get right into the action.
…Or, if this seems to unlikely to you, imagine a “Battle for Paris” A&A game where the French and British need to hold out against a German assault for a set number of turns (which exceeds their historical performance) to win. That might also be playable, and would require a more representative set of French sculpts as a sale point.
The Battle of France would make a great A&A game. Because of the facts of history and how they translate to A&A games, you might be able to have a game that was more accurate AND more balanced than any previous A&A game. This would probably translate into more fun for more players.
With a May 10, 1940 starting date, the forces could be historically accurate and very well balanced. Both sides had between 3.3-3.4 million troops. The Allies had advantages in artillery, 2:1, and armored units, 3:2, but the Germans had the advantage in aircraft, 2:1.
I envision the map showng all of France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Switzerland; western Germany, including Frankfurt; northwestern Italy; the northwestern Mediterranean; the English Channel; and Southern England, including London. The Germans win if they take Paris or London. The Allies win if they take Frankfurt or if they hold Paris and London for some length of time.
It would be cool to show Berlin because in the actual war the British & French would have had to take it to win in 1940, but I don’t think you get enough game play value to extend the map that far east.
A balanced game is even harder to pull off (global I guess would be different story)…I can try to keep one at bay, but one of the axis is going to become a monster because if you go that route, I would make Japan bloom and Germany would just go all defensive and control the Atlantic…that’s why a balanced game can’t be pulled off. US can’t half a$s the Japanese, and you certainly will never get into Europe if you half-a$s the atlantic… Trust me, I would love to do that with the US (I guess a way to do that is make the US like UK/India in Global. Give the EUS like 33 spend and WUS 21…just random numbers, don’t anyone strike it down in fury). You get money to spend for both sides, and you limit the effect of a KJF/KGF strat (granted, you could still go through the canal and beef up the other side, so I don’t have a great answer for it).
Interesting idea. I think you could get away with giving US just a moderate bump, maybe 5 extra IPCs total, and requiring that they spend no more than half +1/2 IPC on either side. Tho if they lose WUS, they’d have to be allowed to spend all on EUS.
And you can create a house rule quite easily to add Italy: switch all German units on Libya, Italy and Southern Europe by Italian ones. German/Italy’s turn is now combined (they receive and purchase separately but the combat moves and combat are made together).
I put some thought into this idea a few days ago. But one thing I didn’t think about was the fact that it would work as a balancing factor, making Germany’s production less efficient. Also, I think you would switch the BB and AP to Italian.
Say i park 15 Japanese subs in SZ56 (assume the US pacific fleet is gone), what can US do about it?
Also, US could mass FTRs on Western United States, save for 1-2 turns, fly the FTRs to Sz 56 and drop multiple DD, SS, and CV. But I prefer Hobbes’s idea of going KGF.
Assuming Japan was trying to go for India and had bought 5 subs then I’d focus really on keeping the Pacific fleet distracting Japan, reinforce India and start building an Atlantic fleet with the US. If India falls on J2 then the UK will have to switch to Europe as well and with a 2nd buy of 5 subs then Japan just wasted 60 IPC on naval units that can’t be used against Russia while the Allies start going after Germany.
I agree. If Japan wants to buy 5 subs, then I’m going KGF.
I think to make a WWII game that is realistic, balanced, and fun to play and has a historical starting point you need to give it an earlier start and more vibrant political rules and victory conditions. You could start the game something like 1938 and have a buildup & influence period of a couple of rounds. Each major power should have its own victory conditions. For example, if USSR wound up conquering all of mainland Europe, that would be a total victory for the Soviet player, a total defeat for Germany and France, and a defeat for UK and USA.
