Axis and Allies: how to balance?
The Lorax
It seems pretty clear that most people consider Axis and Allies to
be slanted in favor of the Allies (I happen to agree). So I'd like to
hear what other people like to do to balance it and try to give the Axis
a fair chance. I played in a tournament in January and the ref. used the
following:
1) Russia will not be allowed to attack during the first turn.
2) Germany gets super subs though out the games, starting turn one.
3) Germany and Japan get five additional I.P.C.'s on the first build. In
other words Germany gets 37 I.P.C's and Japan gets 30 I.P.C.'s to build
units with on turn one. This applies to the first turn *only*. They do
*not* get five additional I.P.C.'s for each turn throughout the game.
4) Friendly planes may not land on a newly built carrier for 1 full 5
player cycle. In other words, if Britian builds a carrier on its first
turn of the game, USA would not be able to land its planes on the British
carrier until the second USA turn of the game.
5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both Western
Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
Those were his rules mods. In addition to that if both sides still
wanted the Allies we bid points for the ecconomic victory. Whoever bid
lower got to play the Allies and the bid stated was the total number of
points tthe Axis needed at the end of any US player turn to claim an
ecconomic victory.
In the end analysis these changes didn't seem to make much
difference. With typical bids of 79-80 points for ecconomic victory the
Allies still won five of the seven games with the final game ending in a
draw after eleven rounds in seven hours. I don't know what happened in
the one game the Axis did win, but I walked by on turn three or four and
saw that Germans had *two* battleships on the board! (wonder how that
happened!)
"UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot
Nothing's going to get better. It's not."
-- The Onceler --
Jimmy Kerl
The Lorax wrote:
>
> It seems pretty clear that most people consider Axis and Allies to
> be slanted in favor of the Allies (I happen to agree). So I'd like to
> hear what other people like to do to balance it and try to give the Axis
> a fair chance. I played in a tournament in January and the ref. used the
> following:
>
> 1) Russia will not be allowed to attack during the first turn.
I use this rule all the time. I never play w/o it.
> 2) Germany gets super subs though out the games, starting turn one.
It's _supposed_ to be japan gets super-subs and Germany gets Jet power.
> 3) Germany and Japan get five additional I.P.C.'s on the first build. In
> other words Germany gets 37 I.P.C's and Japan gets 30 I.P.C.'s to build
> units with on turn one. This applies to the first turn *only*. They do
> *not* get five additional I.P.C.'s for each turn throughout the game.
+10IPC isn't NEARLY enough to balance the game +30-50 *MIGHT* balance it.
>
> 4) Friendly planes may not land on a newly built carrier for 1 full 5
> player cycle. In other words, if Britian builds a carrier on its first
> turn of the game, USA would not be able to land its planes on the British
> carrier until the second USA turn of the game.
>
This hurts the axis as much as the allies, and in my opinion is a REALLY anoying
rule. I mean WHY by an aircraft carrier if this rule exists. With
a rule like this i think i'd buy battleships instead of carriers. I
don't like rules like this because they imbalance a specific type of unit resulting
in a lower diverisity of useful units available to purchase. The units in
A&A do not lack balance; the overall gameboard does. This rule limits the
number of available stratiges and doesn't help the axis one bit.
> 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both Western
> Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
>
This rule is intresting but pointless. the Only thing this does is protect
germany, and E. Europe from possible amphibous assults. It has little
effect and adds another house specific rule.
> Those were his rules mods. In addition to that if both sides still
> wanted the Allies we bid points for the ecconomic victory. Whoever bid
> lower got to play the Allies and the bid stated was the total number of
> points tthe Axis needed at the end of any US player turn to claim an
> ecconomic victory.
bidding for economic victory points required hardly has much effect. You
would have to bid kinda extreme to have any effect. I mean if you can
take 74 points, it's not to much harder to take 84. Once you dominate the
board, you have won the game no mater which side you are. 'Course the
problem is w/o house rules the Allies start WAY ahead. The best way to win
it to start by taking a capital.
>
> In the end analysis these changes didn't seem to make much
> difference. With typical bids of 79-80 points for ecconomic victory the
> Allies still won five of the seven games with the final game ending in a
> draw after eleven rounds in seven hours. I don't know what happened in
> the one game the Axis did win, but I walked by on turn three or four and
> saw that Germans had *two* battleships on the board! (wonder how that
> happened!)
>
> "UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot
> Nothing's going to get better. It's not."
> -- The Onceler --
Here's the rules i like best: (except for the bidding and the no max units rule
these are the all the official optional rules.)
Germany starts with Jet power.
Japan starts with Super Subs.
Russia may not attack on the first turn.
New ships purchased may be placed in enemy-occupied sea-zones.
No econimic victory.
No maxium number of units rule.
Bids are made for the Axis. (I usually bid 25-35) After bids are taken,
each player adds d6 and adds it to his bid giving his adjusted bid.
The player with the lowest adjusted bid playes the Axis. Ties
are resolved with another d6 roll, 50% chance for each player.
Now the player that won the bid gets his original bid in
IPC's before russia's first turn.
He can spend as many of these IPC's now adding extra starting units for
eithor Germany or Japan. However, Each unit costs 1 IPC more than usual
prices. (infantry cost 4, tanks cost 6, transports and subs 9, etc.) These
prices are only used for buying extra initial units.
Industrial complexes may be purchased for 15 IPC's each at this time. However
this is the only way to add new industrial complexes as other new complexes are not
allowed. Note that these extra industrial complexes bought are to have limited
capicity only (ie baised on the IPC value of the terittory they are placed in)
If any of these IPC's are left over they are added to eithor Germany or Japan's
inital first-turn IPC's.
Well these are all just opinions of course. Tell me which rules here you
like or dislike. Or tell me if you all disagree with my assesement of the
previous set of house rules.
Jimmy.
Michael Schneider
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970322...@newton.pconline.com>,
The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
> It seems pretty clear that most people consider Axis and Allies to
> be slanted in favor of the Allies (I happen to agree). So I'd like to
> hear what other people like to do to balance it and try to give the Axis
> a fair chance. I played in a tournament in January and the ref. used the
> following:
>
> 1) Russia will not be allowed to attack during the first turn.
>
> 2) Germany gets super subs though out the games, starting turn one.
I would rather give Germany jet fighters.
German super-subs are essentially a first-turn throw-away, and then no
more are ever built because Germany cannot maintain a navy.
> 3) Germany and Japan get five additional I.P.C.'s on the first build. In
> other words Germany gets 37 I.P.C's and Japan gets 30 I.P.C.'s to build
> units with on turn one. This applies to the first turn *only*. They do
> *not* get five additional I.P.C.'s for each turn throughout the game.
One extra tank per will not make a difference (and extra fighter might).
> 4) Friendly planes may not land on a newly built carrier for 1 full 5
> player cycle. In other words, if Britian builds a carrier on its first
> turn of the game, USA would not be able to land its planes on the British
> carrier until the second USA turn of the game.
Big deal. If Germany sacrifices the Luftwaffe to destroy shipping, it
loses the game. It cannot win battles of attrition (Germany's job is one
of defense in Europe, with a few units to play with in Africa; Japan has
all the fun). Making it tough for England to build a carrier doesn't
change that. (America will simply build one if the need is seen.)
> 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both Western
> Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
This should also apply to the Mediterranian. (I.e., is Spain is bribed
by Germany, or Gibralter captured, the Allies must take them and hold the
African side before entering the sea.
(I would make subs immune to either sea's restricted entry.)
> Those were his rules mods. In addition to that if both sides still
> wanted the Allies we bid points for the ecconomic victory. Whoever bid
> lower got to play the Allies and the bid stated was the total number of
> points tthe Axis needed at the end of any US player turn to claim an
> ecconomic victory.
>
> In the end analysis these changes didn't seem to make much
> difference. With typical bids of 79-80 points for ecconomic victory the
> Allies still won five of the seven games with the final game ending in a
> draw after eleven rounds in seven hours. I don't know what happened in
> the one game the Axis did win, but I walked by on turn three or four and
> saw that Germans had *two* battleships on the board! (wonder how that
> happened!)
+--+--+
Remove ".antispam" from my eddress before emailing.
Pyromania: http://www.tncnet.com/~rsears/oak/explode.html
America's soap opera: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Iconoclast Greg Swann Writes: http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/
Yahoo! Maps: http://maps.yahoo.com/yahoo/ (submit La Crosse, WI)
National Organization for Non-Enumeration: http://www.ime.net/none/
W. Beck's Anthology: http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Assimilation: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/intro.htm
Waco Holocaust Museum: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
Internet Infidels "The Secular Web": http://www.infidels.org/
Download'n Fool: http://www.shareware.com/SW/Search/Index/
Pyromania2: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
Michael Schneider
In article <33361E...@icok.net>, Jimmy Kerl <j...@icok.net> wrote:
snip
> > 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both Western
> > Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
>
> This rule is intresting but pointless. the Only thing this does is protect
> germany, and E. Europe from possible amphibous assults. It has little
> effect and adds another house specific rule.
I disagree. "Closed Straits" merely follows the canal precident. It
also follows history: Allied shipping (other than subs) could not enter
the Baltic, and tense moments ensued when the first Allied fleet entering
the Mediterranian sailed past nominally neutral Franco's Spanish guns.
It's effect is profound: Germany is no longer compelled to keep lots of
material sitting around in the homeland or in Italy merely to deter
amphibious assaults (of course it must now occupy Spain). To say "the only
thing it does is protect Germany" misses the point of almost all of these
options: making the Axis (particularly Germany) viable.
> bidding for economic victory points required hardly has much effect. You
> would have to bid kinda extreme to have any effect. I mean if you can
> take 74 points, it's not to much harder to take 84.
The Axis can get to 74 by suicide charging early in the game,
sacrificing irreplaceable naval and aircraft units, but not to 84, which
requires snapping up a lot of out-of-the-way places like New Zealand and
Madagascar.
I have played in *many* A&A games where the Axis climbed to at or
slightly over 80 points before being rolled back and crushed.
The simple fact of the matter is that, irrespective of production, the
Allies have much more defensible capitals. Japan and England are on
Islands and almost never fall except through stupidity (or foregone
conclusions). The United States is unattainable unless played by a stark
rube. Which leaves surface-attackable Russia and Germany. The Allies can
win without Russia. The Axis can never win without Germany (at least I've
never heard of it happening). The United States proper is worth 22 points
and consits of two virtually worry-free areas. The Axis simply doesn't
have a luxury like that which does not need to be defended with more than
minimalist effort.
> Here's the rules i like best: (except for the bidding and the no max
units rule these are the all the official optional rules.)
>
> Germany starts with Jet power.
> Japan starts with Super Subs.
> Russia may not attack on the first turn.
> New ships purchased may be placed in enemy-occupied sea-zones.
> No econimic victory.
> No maxium number of units rule.
>
> Bids are made for the Axis. (I usually bid 25-35) After bids are taken,
> each player adds d6 and adds it to his bid giving his adjusted bid.
If you play with bidding, you don't need the others (except ship placement).
. . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
_____ o | Settlers of Catan, Mayfair Rails,|
____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
[________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +--------------Mike:1-612-529-7168-+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1st Minnesota gamers: 7pm Fri, "The Source": NW corner Snelling & Larpentuer
in Roseville. Also: "Phoenix Games" and "Red Dragon Hobby" along Lake Street
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
>
> It seems pretty clear that most people consider Axis and Allies to
> be slanted in favor of the Allies (I happen to agree). So I'd like to
> hear what other people like to do to balance it and try to give the >Axis
> a fair chance. I played in a tournament in January and the ref. used the
> following:
According to MB there is no need for balancing the game. The game starts
in Spring 1942. Most of the people would agree that it was the last
moment for Axis to win the war at all. MB also says that Axis should
attack swiftly before Allied build-up.
There is no exact info how much time each round of the game represents
but it is obviously more than A3R or WiF. Lets say it is roughly 6
months. It means that after round 4 we are in the Spring of 1944 and the
time for Axis has gone. If Axis can't win early (before game turn 5 or
6) they are doomed to lose and that's correct from my point of view.
Anyway, experince of my group is that one round of game lasts for one
hour so after six rounds we are pretty much spent for that evening (or
night to precise).
> 1) Russia will not be allowed to attack during the first turn.
It is the most known rule I think. In my opinion, it would be better to
change initial setup to make Soviet attack more costly and in the case
of Far East, almost suicidal.
> 2) Germany gets super subs though out the games, starting turn one.
Sounds good to me, it has historycal flavor also. However subs are to
vulnerable from air attack, Gamers Paradise Expansion I has very good
naval rules, especially for u-boats.
> 3) Germany and Japan get five additional I.P.C.'s on the first build. In
> other words Germany gets 37 I.P.C's and Japan gets 30 I.P.C.'s to build
> units with on turn one. This applies to the first turn *only*. They do
> *not* get five additional I.P.C.'s for each turn throughout the game.
I don't like such rules. Rules have to be consistent throughout the
game, regardless the turn #.
> 4) Friendly planes may not land on a newly built carrier for 1 full 5
> player cycle. In other words, if Britian builds a carrier on its first
> turn of the game, USA would not be able to land its planes on the British
> carrier until the second USA turn of the game.
Why not for entire game? Anyway, it sounds stupid that planes from one
country use carrier from other.
> 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both Western
> Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
Great rule, but for the sake of consistence, it had to have the same
influence on German naval movement too. My group introduced that as a
house rule with exception of subs which can move in non-combat if only
one territory is friendly.
Also this rule is valid for Gibraltar, only side who owns it can pass
surface vessels through it (except for non-combat sub movement) and
Bospor (only side who owns Turkey can pass vessels through it, without
exception for subs).
Drax
Michael Schneider
In article <3337D418...@neptun.design.etk.ericsson.se>, Drazen
Kramaric <etk...@neptun.design.etk.ericsson.se> wrote:
> > 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both Western
> > Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
>
> Great rule, but for the sake of consistence, it had to have the same
> influence on German naval movement too. My group introduced that as a
> house rule with exception of subs which can move in non-combat if only
> one territory is friendly.
>
> Also this rule is valid for Gibraltar, only side who owns it can pass
> surface vessels through it (except for non-combat sub movement) and
> Bospor (only side who owns Turkey can pass vessels through it, without
> exception for subs).
Closed Straits uses canals and history for precedent.
And yes, German naval forces (other than subs, as some play) cannot
enter or leave the Baltic or Mediterranian into the Atlantic without
controlling both sides. (Gibraltar, despite the way it looks on the board,
does not actually overlook the strait and the British had no heavy guns
there; and since Spain and Turkey start neutral, they do not oppose unit
movement.)
In any event, the German player would willingly accept these
limitations since after the first turn or two he doesn't have a navy and
doesn't care.
The Lorax
Just to clarify, the rules I posted were ones I had to play under,
not ones I set up or endorsed.
On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Michael Schneider wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970322...@newton.pconline.com>,
> The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Germany gets super subs though out the games, starting turn one.
>
> I would rather give Germany jet fighters.
>
> German super-subs are essentially a first-turn throw-away, and then no
> more are ever built because Germany cannot maintain a navy.
I agree. On the other hand giving Japan supersubs might have helped
them out as they are required to keep a navy.
> > 3) Germany and Japan get five additional I.P.C.'s on the first build. In
> > other words Germany gets 37 I.P.C's and Japan gets 30 I.P.C.'s to build
> > units with on turn one. This applies to the first turn *only*. They do
> > *not* get five additional I.P.C.'s for each turn throughout the game.
>
>
> One extra tank per will not make a difference (and extra fighter might).
Again I agree. A fighter for anyone would make a difference and
perhaps go too far. On the other hand I think giving each of the axis an
extra transport or sub could have made a real difference. Allowing
Germany to either put more troops in Africa or have an extra sub to
attack the British fleet so they don't loose as many planes the first
turn. For Japan it would mean taking an extra territory or strengthening
their position on the main land, or having another sub in the Pearl
Harbor attack to reduce their looses.
> > 4) Friendly planes may not land on a newly built carrier for 1 full 5
> > player cycle. In other words, if Britian builds a carrier on its first
> > turn of the game, USA would not be able to land its planes on the British
> > carrier until the second USA turn of the game.
>
>
> Big deal. If Germany sacrifices the Luftwaffe to destroy shipping, it
> loses the game. It cannot win battles of attrition (Germany's job is one
> of defense in Europe, with a few units to play with in Africa; Japan has
> all the fun). Making it tough for England to build a carrier doesn't
> change that. (America will simply build one if the need is seen.)
It was a big deal. This rule I feel was made specifically in
response to the strategy my partner and I used to win the first two rounds
of the tournament last year where we had the U.S. build a carrier on turn
one and land the British fighters on it. It moved into position to
protect transports build by the British on turn two. The Germans had no
choice but to attack this fleet at loosing odds destroying all their
aircraft and letting the British and Americans build unharassed from then
on.
> 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both
Western > > Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
>
>
> This should also apply to the Mediterranian. (I.e., is Spain is bribed
> by Germany, or Gibralter captured, the Allies must take them and hold the
> African side before entering the sea.
> (I would make subs immune to either sea's restricted entry.)
If this were the case then the German units that begin in the med
would never be able to move out.
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
> On the other hand giving Japan supersubs might have helped
> them out as they are required to keep a navy.
However, supersub is offensive weapon. Japan's real goal is Asia's
mainland not attacking US Pacific fleet. If US player simply decides not
to position his fleet within striking distance of IJN, these benefit
(supersubs) would be void for Japan.
> It was a big deal. This rule I feel was made specifically in
> response to the strategy my partner and I used to win the first two rounds
> of the tournament last year where we had the U.S. build a carrier on turn
> one and land the British fighters on it. It moved into position to
> protect transports build by the British on turn two. The Germans had no
> choice but to attack this fleet at loosing odds destroying all their
> aircraft and letting the British and Americans build unharassed from then
> on.
I shall repeat myself. The best solution would be to forbide landing of
fighters to allie's carrier.
> > 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both
> Western > > Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
> If this were the case then the German units that begin in the med
> would never be able to move out.
So what? These ships are Italian ships and they have no business outside
Med at all. Gibraltar has no defence at all. If german player is so
eager to move his fleet outside Med, he could take Gibraltar in first
round by amphibious assault or in the second via Spain. (in case no
parachute house rule is applied).
Anyway, everybody knows that chess is not balanced game. White player
has an advantage over black. There are tournaments with same
"unbalanced" rules for decades and nobody makes a question about this.
Axis have to win early if they want to win, period. It is WW2 game
starting from turning point of war. If rules need change (they need IMO)
it has to be connected with more historical accuracy regarding setup and
map for beginning.
Drax
The Lorax
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Drazen Kramaric wrote:
> However, supersub is offensive weapon. Japan's real goal is Asia's
> mainland not attacking US Pacific fleet. If US player simply decides not
> to position his fleet within striking distance of IJN, these benefit
> (supersubs) would be void for Japan.
This all depends on the strategies being used. Sometimes it is
better for the Japanese to make a strike. If nothing else, how can the
US be in position to strike the Japanese fleet with his own fleet unless
he first puts them into strinking range? This would give the Japanese
the opportunity to strike first, or keep the US at arm's reach.
> I shall repeat myself. The best solution would be to forbide landing of
> fighters to allie's carrier.
I did not see your ealier message where you said this.
> > > 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both
> > Western > > Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
>
> > If this were the case then the German units that begin in the med
> > would never be able to move out.
>
> So what? These ships are Italian ships and they have no business outside
> Med at all. Gibraltar has no defence at all. If german player is so
But the Germans only have one battleship. I would agree with you
about the Italian fleet staying in the mde *if* there was a German
battlship in the Atlantic as well but this denies them any surface fleet
in the Atlantic. I disagree with requiring them to take Gibralter first
as it means there is no possible way for them to move that battleship out
on the first turn.
> Anyway, everybody knows that chess is not balanced game. White player
> has an advantage over black. There are tournaments with same
> "unbalanced" rules for decades and nobody makes a question about this.
> Axis have to win early if they want to win, period. It is WW2 game
> starting from turning point of war. If rules need change (they need IMO)
> it has to be connected with more historical accuracy regarding setup and
> map for beginning.
I agree with your basic idea here. I feel the greatest problem with
Axis and Allies is that they tried to make it start in 1942, instead of
begining in 1939 when the war actually began. I know there are variants
that start in 1939 but I haven't played any of those myself. I have a
problem with buying a variant set that costs me more than the original
game.
Michael Schneider
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.97032...@newton.pconline.com>,
The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify, the rules I posted were ones I had to play under,
> not ones I set up or endorsed.
> > One extra tank per will not make a difference (and extra fighter might).
>
> Again I agree. A fighter for anyone would make a difference and
> perhaps go too far. On the other hand I think giving each of the axis an
> extra transport or sub could have made a real difference. Allowing
> Germany to either put more troops in Africa or have an extra sub to
> attack the British fleet so they don't loose as many planes the first
With average rolls, they shouldn't lose any planes with their attack on
the English fleet. They just have to devote enough planes to make kills,
and enough ships for "soaks".
Germany needs more than one extra fighter to keep the Kurelian horde
off its ass.
> turn. For Japan it would mean taking an extra territory or strengthening
> their position on the main land, or having another sub in the Pearl
> Harbor attack to reduce their looses.
They could use a complex in French Indochina. Then they could actually
deal with the British complex in India supported by five aircraft and over
half a dozen ground units by their turn two.
> > > 4) Friendly planes may not land on a newly built carrier for 1 full 5
> > > player cycle. In other words, if Britian builds a carrier on its first
> > > turn of the game, USA would not be able to land its planes on the British
> > > carrier until the second USA turn of the game.
> >
> >
> > Big deal. If Germany sacrifices the Luftwaffe to destroy shipping, it
> > loses the game. It cannot win battles of attrition (Germany's job is one
> > of defense in Europe, with a few units to play with in Africa; Japan has
> > all the fun). Making it tough for England to build a carrier doesn't
> > change that. (America will simply build one if the need is seen.)
>
> It was a big deal. This rule I feel was made specifically in
> response to the strategy my partner and I used to win the first two rounds
> of the tournament last year where we had the U.S. build a carrier on turn
> one and land the British fighters on it. It moved into position to
> protect transports build by the British on turn two. The Germans had no
> choice but to attack this fleet at loosing odds destroying all their
> aircraft and letting the British and Americans build unharassed from then
> on.
I wouldn't have attacked. Why should I? It's enough that I'd've goaded
you into spending a lot of money on defensive naval firepower that would
never be used in combat. With my matching 18 marks, I build six extra INF.
> > 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both
> Western > > Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
> >
> >
> > This should also apply to the Mediterranian. (I.e., is Spain is bribed
> > by Germany, or Gibralter captured, the Allies must take them and hold the
> > African side before entering the sea.
> > (I would make subs immune to either sea's restricted entry.)
>
> If this were the case then the German units that begin in the med
> would never be able to move out.
Nix Gibralter. See my other post. (Look at an accurate map of Spain
some time - Gibralter is close to, but does not overlook the strait. And
if people actually knew how small Gibralter was, the notion that you could
actually station any significant number of military forces in it would be
treated as ridiculous.)
Michael Schneider
In article <333903DE...@neptun.design.etk.ericsson.se>, Drazen
Kramaric <etk...@neptun.design.etk.ericsson.se> wrote:
> The Lorax wrote:
>
> > On the other hand giving Japan supersubs might have helped
> > them out as they are required to keep a navy.
>
> However, supersub is offensive weapon. Japan's real goal is Asia's
> mainland not attacking US Pacific fleet.
Yep! Nippers build a bomber every turn. Those Russian forces melt like
butter when five bombers and four INF wipe out a province a turn. Only way
to dead with that India complex too. Better hope your Kraut pal is
building a wall of $3 battle whores instead of going out in a blaze of
glory.
. . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
_____ o | Settlers of Catan, Mayfair Rails,|
____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
[________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +--------------Mike:1-612-529-7168-+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1st Minnesota gamers: 7pm Fri, "The Source": NW corner Snelling & Larpentuer
in Roseville. Also: "Phoenix Games" and "Red Dragon Hobby" along Lake Street
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
+--+--+
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
>
> This all depends on the strategies being used. Sometimes it is
> better for the Japanese to make a strike. If nothing else, how can the
> US be in position to strike the Japanese fleet with his own fleet unless
> he first puts them into strinking range? This would give the Japanese
> the opportunity to strike first, or keep the US at arm's reach.
Simple. US have to put its fleet in striking distance of some seazone
which US want to defend at all costs. As soon as IJN sails there, US
should strike it with all help from land based aircraft. In worst case,
British land based aircraft should finnish what was left of Kido Butai.
> But the Germans only have one battleship.
And its job is to protect free transport of German forces to Africa, not
to cruise around Atlantic.
> I disagree with requiring them to take Gibralter first
> as it means there is no possible way for them to move that battleship out
> on the first turn.
Yes, but Gibraltar rule has to be together with Skagerakk rule which
protects Germany (or even more important, Eastern Europe) from
amphibious attack.
> I agree with your basic idea here. I feel the greatest problem with
> Axis and Allies is that they tried to make it start in 1942, instead of
> begining in 1939 when the war actually began. I know there are variants
> that start in 1939 but I haven't played any of those myself. I have a
> problem with buying a variant set that costs me more than the original
> game.
Right, me too, especially if I have to agree with silly rules which
benefits German player if Hitler is assasinated.
Drax
Keith Bowen
In article <mike1-27039...@192-166.dynamic.visi.com> mi...@visi.antispam.com
>In article <333903DE...@neptun.design.etk.ericsson.se>, Drazen
>Kramaric <etk...@neptun.design.etk.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
>> The Lorax wrote:
>>
>> > On the other hand giving Japan supersubs might have helped
>> > them out as they are required to keep a navy.
>>
>> However, supersub is offensive weapon. Japan's real goal is Asia's
>> mainland not attacking US Pacific fleet.
>
> Yep! Nippers build a bomber every turn. Those Russian forces melt like
>butter when five bombers and four INF wipe out a province a turn. Only way
>to dead with that India complex too. Better hope your Kraut pal is
>building a wall of $3 battle whores instead of going out in a blaze of
>glory.
>
Another nice thing about the bombers is you can opt to devour Russia's
cash. Usually once you have a solid ground force in Asia, Russia will
just try to delay your advance - so the bombers are better off reducing
Russia's industry instead of helping an already overwhelming attack.
Any competent German player will know when to 'turtle'. If Japan has been
left to run wild, then Germany just has to hold on 'till help arrives
(4-5 jap fighters landing in germany is a usually a pretty good start).
So inf is usually the way to go for Germany.
-Keith
Hauptmann Brutalitaet
bo...@cs.dal.ca
T.H. van den Doel
Try this to _help_ balancing A&A.
Introduce new unit: _escort_.
(included in the XenoGames expansions)
escorts:
12 IPC
move 2
attack 2
defend 3
no background fire!!
Initial placement:
* USSR: 1 Sovjet Far East
* UK: 1 UK
1 India
* USA: 1 WestUSA
1 EastUSA
* Germany: 1 Germany
1 Southern Europe
* Japan: 1 Japan
1 Philipines
1 Carolines
This will give:
- Germany a bigger assault-force for attacking the UK-fleet
in the first turn
- Give Japan a huge fleet in the Pacific
Theun,
The Lorax
I haven't played the Xeno expansion but writen a variant of my own
that included cruisers, almost exactly as you describe escorts here.
Haven't play tested it yet but I had the impression that it would
actually be an allied advantage in the long run as it make it less
expensive for the British and US to defend their transports. Two
cruisers costing the same as one battleship and giving a defense of 6 on
two units instead of only 4 on one unit.
With the placement you give here it seems even on the first turn
this set up favors the British most. It gives the Germans one more unit
attacking at a 2 to go after the British home fleet but at the same time
it adds one unit defending at a 3 to the British home fleet. It also
gives the British a defensive unit at India making it considerably more
difficult if the Japanese want to anphibious assult India on the first
turn. This makes building a factory in India on the first turn more
attractive.
By the way, what do you mean by "no background fire"?
Jimmy Kerl
T.H. van den Doel wrote:
>
> Try this to _help_ balancing A&A.
> Introduce new unit: _escort_.
> (included in the XenoGames expansions)
>
> escorts:
>
> 12 IPC
> move 2
> attack 2
> defend 3
Intresting, defend at 3 and shoots at planes: Very powerful.
I like it. what else is in those expansions? maybe i should actully
give then a look over.
>
> no background fire!!
what is background fire?
Though, this defnitally helps the allies much more.
(even with all those initial placements)
Jimmy
The Lorax
On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Jimmy Kerl wrote:
> Here's the rules i like best: (except for the bidding and the no max
units rule
> these are the all the official optional rules.)
>
> Germany starts with Jet power.
> Japan starts with Super Subs.
> Russia may not attack on the first turn.
> New ships purchased may be placed in enemy-occupied sea-zones.
> No econimic victory.
> No maxium number of units rule.
What is the maxium number of units rule?
> Bids are made for the Axis. (I usually bid 25-35) After bids are taken,
> each player adds d6 and adds it to his bid giving his adjusted bid.
>
> The player with the lowest adjusted bid playes the Axis. Ties
> are resolved with another d6 roll, 50% chance for each player.
>
> Now the player that won the bid gets his original bid in
> IPC's before russia's first turn.
>
> He can spend as many of these IPC's now adding extra starting units for
> eithor Germany or Japan. However, Each unit costs 1 IPC more than usual
> prices. (infantry cost 4, tanks cost 6, transports and subs 9, etc.) These
> prices are only used for buying extra initial units.
These raised prices seem pointless to me as all they would do is
inflate the bids. Why not leave everything at its normal prices and just
bid 20 instead of inflating prices and bidding 25?
> Industrial complexes may be purchased for 15 IPC's each at this time.
However > this is the only way to add new industrial complexes as other
new complexes are not > allowed. Note that these extra industrial
complexes bought are to have limited > capicity only (ie baised on the IPC
value of the terittory they are placed in)
So none of the Allies every had an opportunity to ever build extra
factories? I think that might takes things a bit too far.
Live your beliefs
Believe in your life
<Lo...@pconline.com>
St. Paul, Minnesota
The Lorax
On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Michael Schneider wrote:
> > Again I agree. A fighter for anyone would make a difference and
> > perhaps go too far. On the other hand I think giving each of the axis an
> > extra transport or sub could have made a real difference. Allowing
> > Germany to either put more troops in Africa or have an extra sub to
> > attack the British fleet so they don't loose as many planes the first
>
>
> With average rolls, they shouldn't lose any planes with their attack on
> the English fleet. They just have to devote enough planes to make kills,
> and enough ships for "soaks".
> Germany needs more than one extra fighter to keep the Kurelian horde
> off its ass.
What is your turn one attack on the British naval units? How many
planes do you send? With the British battleship, transport, and the
Russian transport and sub all together how do you inflict four hits
before the Allies get through your ships and kill one or two fighters?
Do you use both German subs and ignore the American transport? Do you
ignore the transport off of Canada? How many fighters do you use that
you can afford to send any to Karelia and still sink the fleet without
loosing any fighters? In my experience the Germans usually lose one and
often two fighters on the first turn.
> They could use a complex in French Indochina. Then they could actually
> deal with the British complex in India supported by five aircraft and over
> half a dozen ground units by their turn two.
The only question is what do they have to give up to have five
aircraft protecting the complex. :)
> > It was a big deal. This rule I feel was made specifically in
> > response to the strategy my partner and I used to win the first two rounds
> > of the tournament last year where we had the U.S. build a carrier on turn
> > one and land the British fighters on it. It moved into position to
> > protect transports build by the British on turn two. The Germans had no
> > choice but to attack this fleet at loosing odds destroying all their
> > aircraft and letting the British and Americans build unharassed from then
> > on.
>
> I wouldn't have attacked. Why should I? It's enough that I'd've goaded
> you into spending a lot of money on defensive naval firepower that would
> never be used in combat. With my matching 18 marks, I build six extra INF.
If you wouldn't have attacked then it would have been money very
well spent. It means the British and U.S. could both have landed in
force the following turn, with the aircraft from the carrier to support
the first wave of the attack. As the Allied player I would have been
very happy with that result.
Keith Bowen
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970331...@newton.pconline.com> The Lorax
>On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Michael Schneider wrote:
[stuff deleted]
> What is your turn one attack on the British naval units? How many
>planes do you send? With the British battleship, transport, and the
>Russian transport and sub all together how do you inflict four hits
>before the Allies get through your ships and kill one or two fighters?
>Do you use both German subs and ignore the American transport? Do you
>ignore the transport off of Canada? How many fighters do you use that
>you can afford to send any to Karelia and still sink the fleet without
>loosing any fighters? In my experience the Germans usually lose one and
>often two fighters on the first turn.
>
Sending aircraft to Karelia is a waste. The fleets have to be destroyed,
otherwise Germany is dead. To attack the British home fleet + Russian fleet
I usually send 2 subs and 3 fighters. The subs are the fodder, and
they have a roughly 56% chance of getting at least one 'sniper' hit -
so the battle is unlikely to go more than two rounds.
The transports in Canada and Eastern US are more of a problem. It is
very tempting to wipe out at least one of these, as it hinders the
Allied counter-landing in Africa. The US transport is, in some ways,
a better target. Either way, you are risking a fighter.
If Germany loses two fighters on turn 1, the game is over (unless
some major gains are made elsewhere). The German airforce is necessary
for both the defense of Eastern Europe and to prevent Allied transports
from running wild.
[stuff deleted]
>
>> > It was a big deal. This rule I feel was made specifically in
>> > response to the strategy my partner and I used to win the first two rounds
>> > of the tournament last year where we had the U.S. build a carrier on turn
>> > one and land the British fighters on it. It moved into position to
>> > protect transports build by the British on turn two. The Germans had no
>> > choice but to attack this fleet at loosing odds destroying all their
>> > aircraft and letting the British and Americans build unharassed from then
>> > on.
>>
>> I wouldn't have attacked. Why should I? It's enough that I'd've goaded
>> you into spending a lot of money on defensive naval firepower that would
>> never be used in combat. With my matching 18 marks, I build six extra INF.
>
> If you wouldn't have attacked then it would have been money very
>well spent. It means the British and U.S. could both have landed in
>force the following turn, with the aircraft from the carrier to support
>the first wave of the attack. As the Allied player I would have been
>very happy with that result.
>
The main benefit the US carrier provides is that the UK can focus on
troops and transports. This is advantageous for the Allies, because
the UK can put troops directly into the fight while US troops have
to be moved into Eastern Canada first (this allows the US transports
to stay in the North Sea).
turn 1 - UK (30) saves $30
US (36) builds a carrier, 2 transports, saves $4
turn 2 - UK (probably $56) builds up to 7 transports
US (probably $38) builds whatever it needs.
So at the end of turn two there could be up to 8 UK transports and
3 US transports (along with the carrier) in the North Sea. Even
if UK territory is targeted by both the Japs and the Germany (and
it should be), the UK will still be dropping off 7-8 infantry in
Karelia (or Finland-Norway or Western Europe, depending on US plans)
each turn - and that puts Germany in a very tight spot.
-Keith
bo...@cs.dal.ca
The Lorax
On 2 Apr 1997, Keith Bowen wrote:
> Sending aircraft to Karelia is a waste. The fleets have to be destroyed,
> otherwise Germany is dead. To attack the British home fleet + Russian fleet
> I usually send 2 subs and 3 fighters. The subs are the fodder, and
> they have a roughly 56% chance of getting at least one 'sniper' hit -
> so the battle is unlikely to go more than two rounds.
I agree that all the aircraft is needed against the allied ships on
the first turn. First turn attacks on Karelia rely on great luck as the
Germans will be out numbered and out gunned by the Russian infantry and
planes there.
> The transports in Canada and Eastern US are more of a problem. It is
> very tempting to wipe out at least one of these, as it hinders the
> Allied counter-landing in Africa. The US transport is, in some ways,
> a better target. Either way, you are risking a fighter.
There is no way to reach the US transport with a plane on the first
turn. Only way you can go after it is with a sub. The UK transport off
of Canada of course can be hit witht he fighter from Norway. Either way
this takes a bit of fire power off the attack on the UKs home fleet but
if you don't do it they are sure to land something in Africa first turn.
> turn 1 - UK (30) saves $30
> US (36) builds a carrier, 2 transports, saves $4
Slight correction on your math. US starts with 36, less 18 for a
carrier is 18, less 16 for two transports they only save $2.
"Sometimes it is best to be known by ones enemies."
-- Blitzwing --
<Lo...@pconline.com>
St. Paul, Minnesota
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
> The UK transport off
> of Canada of course can be hit witht he fighter from Norway.
Or bomber from Germany.
Odds for Fighter vs transport are:
Fighter wins 5-7
Transport wins 1-7
Mutual destruction 1-7
Bomber vs transport
Bomber wins 10-13
Transport wins 1-13
Mutual destruction 2-13
Drax
Keith Bowen
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970403...@newton.pconline.com> The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> writes:
>On 2 Apr 1997, Keith Bowen wrote:
>
>> Sending aircraft to Karelia is a waste. The fleets have to be destroyed,
>> otherwise Germany is dead. To attack the British home fleet + Russian fleet
>> I usually send 2 subs and 3 fighters. The subs are the fodder, and
>> they have a roughly 56% chance of getting at least one 'sniper' hit -
>> so the battle is unlikely to go more than two rounds.
>
> I agree that all the aircraft is needed against the allied ships on
>the first turn. First turn attacks on Karelia rely on great luck as the
>Germans will be out numbered and out gunned by the Russian infantry and
>planes there.
I've only seen a turn 1 attack on Karelia succeed once, and it required
the Germans to hit with 9 out of 10 rolls at 3. The USSR player almost
had a coronary when he saw the roll.
>> The transports in Canada and Eastern US are more of a problem. It is
>> very tempting to wipe out at least one of these, as it hinders the
>> Allied counter-landing in Africa. The US transport is, in some ways,
>> a better target. Either way, you are risking a fighter.
>
> There is no way to reach the US transport with a plane on the first
>turn. Only way you can go after it is with a sub. The UK transport off
>of Canada of course can be hit witht he fighter from Norway. Either way
>this takes a bit of fire power off the attack on the UKs home fleet but
>if you don't do it they are sure to land something in Africa first turn.
I was thinking of sending a sub instead of a plane to snipe the US transport,
I was just too fried out to get it right... <grin>
The UK transport is more of a priority, I think. Depriving the UK of
territory and troops is a good plan and it is a legitimate possiblity.
The US has too much cash concentrated in North America to really crush
their economy.
>
>> turn 1 - UK (30) saves $30
>> US (36) builds a carrier, 2 transports, saves $4
>
> Slight correction on your math. US starts with 36, less 18 for a
>carrier is 18, less 16 for two transports they only save $2.
>
How embarassing! A stats prof who can't add! What would my students think?
Actually, I wrote that message at a pretty rough time (I'd just finished marking
600 exams, no sleep) - I'm surprised anything I wrote is correct/sensible!
Anyway, thanks for the correction.
-Keith
bo...@cs.dal.ca
Paul Thronson
> I've only seen a turn 1 attack on Karelia succeed once, and it required
> the Germans to hit with 9 out of 10 rolls at 3. The USSR player almost
> had a coronary when he saw the roll.
Is this with No Russian First Attack? (Sorry but I always assume that
everyone uses No Russian First Attack, if you are not, maybe this post
will help you change your mind and you will start playing with it) First
of all, if Germany wants Karelia first turn they can take it. If they
do well, it usually means a quick Axis victory, it can also be very
costly, even causing near certain and quick Axis doom. Please let me
explain:
Russia denfends with all they can (minus one infantry to stop a
German-Caucus Blitz) and buy 8 infantry. This is the BEST the Russia
player can hope to do.
19 infantry
3 tanks
2 planes
Germany takes EVERYTHING (including one tank from France via the Baltic
Transport)
9 infantry
8 tanks
5 fighters
1 bomber
THE ATTACK: A smart German player will retreat before the attack cuts
into any planes or the overall chances of victory drop below 40% (at
that point fighter and economic loss are too great to keep risking). At
the start assuming both sides battle to the death the odds are 52%
Germany takes control, 1.5% draw, and 46.5% attacker anhillated.
However, because Germany should be willing to retreat when it gets real
bad ... 37% Germany takes, 63% Germany retreats.
RESULT #1--BLITZKRIEG: In a few cases, the attack will go SO good the
English will not be able to retake Karelia, even though their fleet
surives. This usually requires about 4-5 German tanks or more to survive
(which happens almost exactly 10% of the time, assuming that Germany
retreats if overall odds drop below 40% --- 13% if Germany always fights
to the death) With the English counter-attack defended (if they counter)
2 Japanesse fighters can reinforce Karelia, and the Allied fate is about
as determined as it can be in this game.
RESULT #2--Narrow Victory: Much more likely however, will be a marginal
victory for the Germans (nearly 27% of the time, 39% if Germany is
willing to do or die). Usually taking Karelia with 1-3 tanks. You can
bet that many times Germany gives up a fighter for this result, but when
the battles get this close, it becomes a morale issue. This result still
gives the Axis more than fair chances. If the English move to counter in
Karlia, it exposes the fleet, which nullifies the original argument
against the attack in the first place. Otherwise, the Russian are hurt
and not very threatening any more and the Germans should be ahead money
to really make the Allies pay for Europe. In this result, Japan must
move quick to Russia, and hopefully Germany will get to build up one
more shot at Russia (not to win ground but to keep Russia soft).
RESULT #3:--I Shall Return: Germany retreats after much mutual damage.
This almost always costs Germany more in raw IPC's. The tank army is
vulnerable in Eastern Europe, with the infantry sheared away, and the
lufftwaffe injured. Best hopes for Germany is to build tanks and try
again next turn if the odds get over 40% (they can always retreat
again). Have to be careful though, with all those Russians still around
it will MUCH easier for Allies to get into Europe. Other than a second
attack Germany can just try to to buy time, however, this rarely lends
itself to an Axis win, unless the Allies are relatively weak players.
RESULT #4--The Russian Winter: Germany does not retreat or losses so
poorly the odds for doing more damage are better fighting that
retreating and lose everything while Russia still enjoys basking on the
Baltic Beaches. Boy, I sure hope this doesn't happen to you the first
time you try this, but if it does, please don't email me :)
***IN SUMMARY --- I call this first round attack the "All or Nothing
Attack" for good reasons. It makes for a potenially VERY quick game. If
Germany takes Karelia with more than 8 tanks left (a result that will
happen 5% of the time!) the Allies can quit. The same goes for a
stubbord German player who doen't yank out the fighters in time. So one
in ten games is over before England moves even once. Also, there is
little "foot-work" involved in this Axis approach. If you are playing
Axis and you know your opponent has a great deal of experience over you
this might be the attack to give you the upperhand. However, if your
opponent is weaker than you, there are safer strategies to play.
All in all though, it gives AXIS about 50/50 ... as do several other
scenarios i am too tired to post now ...
--
Paul Thronson
Network Supervisor
Aberdeen Office - Eide Helmeke PLLP
pthr...@eide.com
Michael Schneider
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970331...@newton.pconline.com>,
The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Michael Schneider wrote:
>
> > > Again I agree. A fighter for anyone would make a difference and
> > > perhaps go too far. On the other hand I think giving each of the axis an
> > > extra transport or sub could have made a real difference. Allowing
> > > Germany to either put more troops in Africa or have an extra sub to
> > > attack the British fleet so they don't loose as many planes the first
> >
> >
> > With average rolls, they shouldn't lose any planes with their attack on
> > the English fleet. They just have to devote enough planes to make kills,
> > and enough ships for "soaks".
> > Germany needs more than one extra fighter to keep the Kurelian horde
> > off its ass.
>
> What is your turn one attack on the British naval units? How many
> planes do you send? With the British battleship, transport, and the
> Russian transport and sub all together how do you inflict four hits
> before the Allies get through your ships and kill one or two fighters?
> Do you use both German subs and ignore the American transport? Do you
> ignore the transport off of Canada? How many fighters do you use that
> you can afford to send any to Karelia and still sink the fleet without
> loosing any fighters? In my experience the Germans usually lose one and
> often two fighters on the first turn.
I don't attack Kurelia (unless Russia plays dumb).
Hit Brits with everything.
> > They could use a complex in French Indochina. Then they could actually
> > deal with the British complex in India supported by five aircraft and over
> > half a dozen ground units by their turn two.
>
> The only question is what do they have to give up to have five
> aircraft protecting the complex. :)
By turn two, Kurelia is well-defended and the excess aircraft aren't
needed. On turn one, Japan does not have enough units near India, so they
aren't needed there then.
> > > It was a big deal. This rule I feel was made specifically in
> > > response to the strategy my partner and I used to win the first two rounds
> > > of the tournament last year where we had the U.S. build a carrier on turn
> > > one and land the British fighters on it. It moved into position to
> > > protect transports build by the British on turn two. The Germans had no
> > > choice but to attack this fleet at loosing odds destroying all their
> > > aircraft and letting the British and Americans build unharassed from then
> > > on.
> >
> > I wouldn't have attacked. Why should I? It's enough that I'd've goaded
> > you into spending a lot of money on defensive naval firepower that would
> > never be used in combat. With my matching 18 marks, I build six extra INF.
>
> If you wouldn't have attacked then it would have been money very
> well spent. It means the British and U.S. could both have landed in
> force the following turn, with the aircraft from the carrier to support
> the first wave of the attack. As the Allied player I would have been
> very happy with that result.
Attack what on the third turn? France? C'mon.....
Germany's hosed in A&A anyway, but it ain't *that* easy.
If I attack the carrier, I lose my planes and the game (even if I sink
you). But if *you* attack Western Europe with my fighters stationed on
defense, it'll be ugly. Especially if my Jap buddy has planes to spare
because your UK pal didn't build an India complex. And you can't retreat
from an amphibious invasion if the die rolls go badly.
"Normandy" invasions are silly when you can simply sail to Kurelia and
dump off without combat, then triple-punch from the east.
. . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
_____ o | Settlers of Catan, Mayfair Rails,|
____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
[________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +--------------Mike:1-612-529-7168-+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1st Minnesota gamers: 7pm Fri, "The Source": NW corner Snelling & Larpentuer
in Roseville. Also: "Phoenix Games" and "Red Dragon Hobby" along Lake Street
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
+--+--+
Remove "_N_O_S_P_A_M_" from my eddress before emailing.
Michael Schneider
> I've only seen a turn 1 attack on Karelia succeed once, and it required
> the Germans to hit with 9 out of 10 rolls at 3. The USSR player almost
> had a coronary when he saw the roll.
That must have been Mike Backstrom rolling those magic dice of his. ;-)
Paul R. Mitchell
In article <5hui5q$9...@News.Dal.Ca>,
bo...@cs.dal.ca (Keith Bowen) wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970331...@newton.pconline.com> The Lorax
><lo...@pconline.com> writes:
>
>
>Sending aircraft to Karelia is a waste. The fleets have to be destroyed,
>otherwise Germany is dead. To attack the British home fleet + Russian fleet
>I usually send 2 subs and 3 fighters. The subs are the fodder, and
>they have a roughly 56% chance of getting at least one 'sniper' hit -
>so the battle is unlikely to go more than two rounds.
>
Germany needs to sink the UK fleet. But's it's generally back again fairly quickly when either UK or USA build a CV. What Germany is doing is buying badly needed time. I had a recent game (as Allies) where Germany ignored the UK fleet. UK invaded W.Eur on UK 2 with USA backup -- Axis surrendered in UK 3.
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>
>>> > It was a big deal. This rule I feel was made specifically in
>>> > response to the strategy my partner and I used to win the first two rounds
>>> > of the tournament last year where we had the U.S. build a carrier on turn
>>> > one and land the British fighters on it. It moved into position to
>>> > protect transports build by the British on turn two. The Germans had no
>>> > choice but to attack this fleet at loosing odds destroying all their
>>> > aircraft and letting the British and Americans build unharassed from then
>>> > on.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't have attacked. Why should I? It's enough that I'd've goaded
>>> you into spending a lot of money on defensive naval firepower that would
>>> never be used in combat. With my matching 18 marks, I build six extra INF.
>>
>> If you wouldn't have attacked then it would have been money very
>>well spent. It means the British and U.S. could both have landed in
>>force the following turn, with the aircraft from the carrier to support
>>the first wave of the attack. As the Allied player I would have been
>>very happy with that result.
>>
Once the Allies have built a formidable fleet, it is suicide to attack. The trick is to keep them from effectively ganging up on Germany. Make it tough to attack W.Eur -- force them to sail into the Baltic or Karelian SZ -- this prevents a US one turn resupply -- ships must sail back to US/Can on one turn, then return the next. Germany must be able to withstand (or recover from) the initial onslaught. Try to make the US attack ahead of UK -- Germany gas a turn in between.
>
>The main benefit the US carrier provides is that the UK can focus on
>troops and transports. This is advantageous for the Allies, because
>the UK can put troops directly into the fight while US troops have
>to be moved into Eastern Canada first (this allows the US transports
>to stay in the North Sea).
>
>turn 1 - UK (30) saves $30
> US (36) builds a carrier, 2 transports, saves $4
>
>turn 2 - UK (probably $56) builds up to 7 transports
> US (probably $38) builds whatever it needs.
>
>So at the end of turn two there could be up to 8 UK transports and
>3 US transports (along with the carrier) in the North Sea. Even
>if UK territory is targeted by both the Japs and the Germany (and
>it should be), the UK will still be dropping off 7-8 infantry in
>Karelia (or Finland-Norway or Western Europe, depending on US plans)
>each turn - and that puts Germany in a very tight spot.
>
I've never tried the US CV trick, usually end up with UK CV w/US ftrs. That's another problem -- allied ftrs onboard a CV. It's a mixed blessing -- extra protection for the CV and TRNs can be had quickly. But it can become cumbersome when you want the UK CV in one location and US ftrs in another (or US CV w/UK ftrs). I've tried most of the combinations, including 1 US and 1 Russian ftr on a UK CV, but nothing is as good as a UK CV w/UK ftrs or a US CV w/US ftrs -- infinitely more flexible.
Paul
Paul R. Mitchell
In article <mike1-04049...@192-129.dynamic.visi.com>,
mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970331...@newton.pconline.com>,
>The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Michael Schneider wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > With average rolls, they shouldn't lose any planes with their attack on
>> > the English fleet. They just have to devote enough planes to make kills,
>> > and enough ships for "soaks".
If I'm Russia and we're playing with a Russian 1st attack, it's not likely that there is a German SUB & TRN in the Baltic to take part in the attack on the UK fleet. Russian SUB & 1 ftr should pretty much do in the Baltic fleet. If TRN is taken as 1st German casualty, I then withdraw te Russian SUB to the UK SZ, assuming it survives.
>>
>> What is your turn one attack on the British naval units? How many
>> planes do you send? With the British battleship, transport, and the
>> Russian transport and sub all together how do you inflict four hits
>> before the Allies get through your ships and kill one or two fighters?
>> Do you use both German subs and ignore the American transport? Do you
>> ignore the transport off of Canada? How many fighters do you use that
>> you can afford to send any to Karelia and still sink the fleet without
>> loosing any fighters? In my experience the Germans usually lose one and
>> often two fighters on the first turn.
>
>
I generally ignore the US/Can TRN's to ensure a kill of the UK fleet -- one of the dangers of this game is trying to attack too many places at once. You go in with narrow odds of success. Even if you win, it is often with a very narrow margin and you get your butt kicked by UK & US on their follow up moves. (But you don't want to play too conservatively either -- you can lose the initiative and it can make for a long and boring game, at least until the endgame slaughter begins. So what if UK or US sends units to Africa -- Axis can win with only minimal control in Africa -- it's better to control Africa, but if it's absorbing Allied resources, that's OK too. Besides, Allied TRN's sent to Africa generally become sitting ducks on the next turn. It can become an expensive Allied "one shot" deal. Also, if the 2 TRN are in Africa, they're not protecting the UK home fleet. Everything is a trade off. That's one of the major factors that makes the game so interesting.
> I don't attack Kurelia (unless Russia plays dumb).
>
> Hit Brits with everything.
>
I concur.
> "Normandy" invasions are silly when you can simply sail to Kurelia and
>dump off without combat, then triple-punch from the east.
>
But, the US needs two turns (or a lot of TRNs to effectively resupply Karelia. Could dump troops in Finland. But they can't go to Karelia unti the next move. US and UK have to go to the same place with their fleets unless Germany is unable (no or few ftrs) to attack. Combined fleets are powerful when COMBINED -- they often become sitting ducks when split up for multiple attacks.
Paul
Michael Schneider
In article <5i5n9i$2...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Paul R. Mitchell
<prm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> > With average rolls, they shouldn't lose any planes with their
attack on
> >> > the English fleet. They just have to devote enough planes to make kills,
> >> > and enough ships for "soaks".
>
> If I'm Russia and we're playing with a Russian 1st attack, it's not
likely that there is a German SUB & TRN in the Baltic to take part in the
attack on the
If we're playing *with* Russia first-attack and I'm Germany, I will
concede the game to you before you're done buying your first turn builds,
get outa my chair and go fetch Shogun.
Michael Schneider
> > "Normandy" invasions are silly when you can simply sail to Kurelia and
> >dump off without combat, then triple-punch from the east.
>
> But, the US needs two turns (or a lot of TRNs to effectively resupply
Karelia. Could dump troops in Finland. But they can't go to Karelia unti
the next move. US and UK have to go to the same place with their fleets
unless Germany is unable (no or few ftrs) to attack. Combined fleets are
powerful when COMBINED -- they often become sitting ducks when split up
for multiple attacks.
In my experience it doesn't really matter. If you've got enough to take
Germany out, yer gonna do it....if Japan doesn't mangle Russia first. And
there's nothing quite like half a dozen English tanks in Kurelia to settle
down the Rising Sun. Time seldom goes against the Allies.
Teddy Scott
Paul Thronson wrote:
>
SNIP
> First
> of all, if Germany wants Karelia first turn they can take it. If they
> do well, it usually means a quick Axis victory, it can also be very
> costly, even causing near certain and quick Axis doom. Please let me
> explain:
>
> Russia denfends with all they can (minus one infantry to stop a
> German-Caucus Blitz) and buy 8 infantry. This is the BEST the Russia
> player can hope to do.
> 19 infantry
> 3 tanks
> 2 planes
>
> Germany takes EVERYTHING (including one tank from France via the Baltic
> Transport)
> 9 infantry
> 8 tanks
> 5 fighters
> 1 bomber
>
> THE ATTACK: A smart German player will retreat before the attack cuts
> into any planes or the overall chances of victory drop below 40% (at
> that point fighter and economic loss are too great to keep risking). At
> the start assuming both sides battle to the death the odds are 52%
> Germany takes control, 1.5% draw, and 46.5% attacker anhillated.
> However, because Germany should be willing to retreat when it gets real
> bad ... 37% Germany takes, 63% Germany retreats.
You have forgotten an important point. By bringing the tank from France
via
the Baltic Transport, the attack is an amphibious assault. Therefore,
the German player doesn't have the luxury of retreating if rolls go bad
early. You are right that if Germany takes Karelia, in the above
scenario, the Axis are well on their way to victory. But, if Germany
makes an all-out (amphibious) attack on Karelia, what I've usually seen
is Germany losing the game on the first time by not being able to
retreat and watching their entire attacking force being wiped out.
If you want to decide the outcome of the game on the first turn, just
spend all your IPCs trying to get heavy bombers. ;)
Teddy Scott
sco...@utsw.swmed.edu
Eric David
Teddy Scott wrote:
>
> > THE ATTACK: A smart German player will retreat before the attack cuts
> > into any planes or the overall chances of victory drop below 40% (at
> > that point fighter and economic loss are too great to keep risking). At
> > the start assuming both sides battle to the death the odds are 52%
> > Germany takes control, 1.5% draw, and 46.5% attacker anhillated.
> > However, because Germany should be willing to retreat when it gets real
> > bad ... 37% Germany takes, 63% Germany retreats.
>
Indeed, no retreat is possible during an amphibous assault. Furthermore,
the axis, in this scenario axis need not only to take Karelia, but to
take it and keep it. Since they don't attack the english fleet, it means
that the brit can counter-attack with 2 INF, 1 ARM, 2 FTR, 1 BMB and 1
BB shot. Whooo! You need to have something like 5 or 6 ARM remaining in
Kar to keep it for Germany. You need more that just being lucky for that
to happen. I usually play with the bidding system (extra troops for the
Axis) so that Russian attacks the first turn but Germany has normally
five or six more INF in the eastern front. Even then, the attack of
Karelia is still an absolute no no.
Mitchell
In article <mike1-06049...@192-152.dynamic.visi.com>,
mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>In article <5i5n9i$2...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Paul R. Mitchell
><prm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> >dump off without combat, then triple-punch from the east.
>>
>Karelia. Could dump troops in Finland. But they can't go to Karelia unti
>the next move. US and UK have to go to the same place with their fleets
>unless Germany is unable (no or few ftrs) to attack. Combined fleets are
>powerful when COMBINED -- they often become sitting ducks when split up
>for multiple attacks.
>
>
> In my experience it doesn't really matter. If you've got enough to take
>Germany out, yer gonna do it....if Japan doesn't mangle Russia first. And
>there's nothing quite like half a dozen English tanks in Kurelia to settle
>down the Rising Sun. Time seldom goes against the Allies.
>
Correct, time seldom goes against the Allies. But the Axis can make time work for them if they can make the Allies waste their moves whenever possible.
Paul
Mitchell
In article <mike1-06049...@192-152.dynamic.visi.com>,
mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>In article <5i5n9i$2...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Paul R. Mitchell
><prm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>attack on
>> >> > the English fleet. They just have to devote enough planes to make kills,
>> >> > and enough ships for "soaks".
>>
>likely that there is a German SUB & TRN in the Baltic to take part in the
>attack on the
>
>
>
> If we're playing *with* Russia first-attack and I'm Germany, I will
>concede the game to you before you're done buying your first turn builds,
>get outa my chair and go fetch Shogun.
>
You'd give up that easily? Even with a bid system? I seriously doubt it.
Paul
Michael Schneider
In article <5i9jfh$a...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Mitchell
<prm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> If I'm Russia and we're playing with a Russian 1st attack, it's not
> >likely that there is a German SUB & TRN in the Baltic to take part in the
> >attack on the
> >
> > If we're playing *with* Russia first-attack and I'm Germany, I will
> >concede the game to you before you're done buying your first turn builds,
> >get outa my chair and go fetch Shogun.
> >
>
> You'd give up that easily? Even with a bid system? I seriously doubt it.
>
> Paul
Well nobody said anything about bidding..... :-)
The whole point of a "How to balance?" discussion is over ways and
strategies to balance the game as it is *now*.
Germany could start the game with twenty tanks and ten jet fighters and
it'd be playable with a bidding system. "Balance" wouldn't matter.
Drazen Kramaric
Michael Schneider wrote:
>
> In article <5i5n9i$2...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Paul R. Mitchell
> <prm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> attack on
> > >> > the English fleet. They just have to devote enough planes to make kills,
> > >> > and enough ships for "soaks".
> >
> likely that there is a German SUB & TRN in the Baltic to take part in the
> attack on the
>
> If we're playing *with* Russia first-attack and I'm Germany, I will
> concede the game to you before you're done buying your first turn builds,
> get outa my chair and go fetch Shogun.
Why? Almost all "Allies always win" strategies are based that there
would be no any kind of sustained defense of Asia. Therefore Japan has
an open route towards Russia, as soon as it builds some IC on mainland.
If Germany succede to take Egypt on first round (likely) and Japan take
India, we could have a race for capitols.
Anyway, game needs changes but real changes, no special rules like "no
Russian first turn attack", but different setup which would make such an
attack more risky for Russians and definitely more space on Eastern
Front. WaW map is good basis but it had to accomodated to Spring 1942.
Drax
The Lorax
On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Paul Thronson wrote:
> if Germany wants Karelia first turn they can take it. If they
> do well, it usually means a quick Axis victory, it can also be very
> costly, even causing near certain and quick Axis doom. Please let me
> explain:
>
> Russia denfends with all they can (minus one infantry to stop a
> German-Caucus Blitz) and buy 8 infantry. This is the BEST the Russia
> player can hope to do.
> 19 infantry
> 3 tanks
> 2 planes
>
> Germany takes EVERYTHING (including one tank from France via the Baltic
> Transport)
> 9 infantry
> 8 tanks
> 5 fighters
> 1 bomber
[snip]
> THE ATTACK: A smart German player will retreat before the attack cuts
> into any planes or the overall chances of victory drop below 40% (at
> that point fighter and economic loss are too great to keep risking). At
> the start assuming both sides battle to the death the odds are 52%
> Germany takes control, 1.5% draw, and 46.5% attacker anhillated.
> However, because Germany should be willing to retreat when it gets real
> bad ... 37% Germany takes, 63% Germany retreats.
[snip]
> ***IN SUMMARY --- I call this first round attack the "All or Nothing
> Attack" for good reasons. It makes for a potenially VERY quick game. If
> Germany takes Karelia with more than 8 tanks left (a result that will
> happen 5% of the time!) the Allies can quit. The same goes for a
> stubbord German player who doen't yank out the fighters in time. So one
> in ten games is over before England moves even once. Also, there is
> little "foot-work" involved in this Axis approach. If you are playing
> Axis and you know your opponent has a great deal of experience over you
> this might be the attack to give you the upperhand. However, if your
> opponent is weaker than you, there are safer strategies to play.
To do this the Germans must completely ignore *all* of the Allied
fleets in the Atlantic. If they do this I don't think it matters if they
do take Karelia because they will be so vulnerable to attack it won't be
funny and the Allies will keep all their expensive naval units allowing
both the U.S. and England to build large fleets immediately and over run
Europe. Play this attack and you are likely to loose Western Europe and
Africa immediatly. The Germans can not afford this.
Even by your numbers, it seems an awfully big risk for something you
believe to be little better than a half and half chance. I personally
don't think your adds are even as high as you say.
Assuming they do win this basically even odds attack, it still far
from assumes them willing the game. Your entire premise sounds to be that
if Germany wins Karelia at all cost on the first turn its and instant Axis
victory. My feeling is that considering what you are giving up to do it
the chances of an Axis victory even with the sucess of having a half dozen
tanks survive the attack is still quite low. Years ago before my Allied
strategies were nearly as well developed as they are now I took it as a
given that the Russians would be out of the game by the end of the third
round and still won the majority of the games playing the Allies. Germany
has to either destroy the Allied fleets in the Atlantic or leave something
behind to defend Europe. In either case if they don't take Africa then
the English have plenty of money to build invasion forces.
I do I do believe that 'brains are mighter than brawn'.
At least I sincerely hope so
or I have no chance at all of surviving.
<Lo...@pconline.com>
St. Paul, Minnesota
Henk Poell
My current 'houserules':
- let russia attack first turn
- highest bidder takes allies
- axis places extra initials units, worth high-bid IPC's
Numbers like 14 or 15 are usual... Extra tanks are very popular,
in Finland, Asia or Africa for example. Somehow I believe the
number should be higher for balanced play, but we like playing
Axis... Anyone else experience with this?
Favorite allied 1st turn purchases here:
turn1: UK nothing, US carrier + bomber
turn2: UK transports/inf, US bombers, UK fighters put on carriers.
My friend's axis strategy: Germany weakens russia, then just
reinforces Berlin, attack WE etc, but don't capture, so that the
allies have keep reinforcing it, Japan eats Russia.
Henk Poell
The Lorax
On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Drazen Kramaric wrote:
> The Lorax wrote:
> >
> > It seems pretty clear that most people consider Axis and Allies to
> > be slanted in favor of the Allies (I happen to agree). So I'd like to
> > hear what other people like to do to balance it and try to give the >Axis
> > a fair chance. I played in a tournament in January and the ref. used the
> > following:
>
>
> According to MB there is no need for balancing the game. The game starts
> in Spring 1942. Most of the people would agree that it was the last
> moment for Axis to win the war at all. MB also says that Axis should
> attack swiftly before Allied build-up.
>
> There is no exact info how much time each round of the game represents
> but it is obviously more than A3R or WiF. Lets say it is roughly 6
> months. It means that after round 4 we are in the Spring of 1944 and the
> time for Axis has gone. If Axis can't win early (before game turn 5 or
> 6) they are doomed to lose and that's correct from my point of view.
>
> Anyway, experince of my group is that one round of game lasts for one
> hour so after six rounds we are pretty much spent for that evening (or
> night to precise).
I know MB's position on this, but you don't really expect them to
admitt the game they made is lobsided do you? Yes this is all
historically accurate. The problem is that if a game is entirely
historically accurate you know who will win before you open the box so
there is no point in playing. Axis and Allies, despite all its abitrary
rules and gross abstractions suffers from this syndrome. If the Allies
stick basically to historically proven strategies (as much as the game
will allow) the Axis can only win by luck of the dice.
> > 1) Russia will not be allowed to attack during the first turn.
>
> It is the most known rule I think. In my opinion, it would be better to
> change initial setup to make Soviet attack more costly and in the case
> of Far East, almost suicidal.
Can you be more specific on exactly what changes you feel should be
made to the set up? Are you saying fewer Russian infantry in the far
east or more Japanese begining on the main land? How would you make the
Soviet attack in Europe more costly without reducing their defense to the
point that Germany could instantly over run Karelia?
> > 2) Germany gets super subs though out the games, starting turn one.
>
> Sounds good to me, it has historycal flavor also. However subs are to
> vulnerable from air attack, Gamers Paradise Expansion I has very good
> naval rules, especially for u-boats.
Historically good, but had little if any effect on the game. In the
war subs were used more for hunting convoys and merchant ships; they
rarely went after fighting ships. Unfortunately the game has no
representation at all of the fact that the U.S. supplied England and
Russia with vital resources like food, weapons, and amunition without
which neither would have been able to hold on as well as they did.
> > 3) Germany and Japan get five additional I.P.C.'s on the first build. In
> > other words Germany gets 37 I.P.C's and Japan gets 30 I.P.C.'s to build
> > units with on turn one. This applies to the first turn *only*. They do
> > *not* get five additional I.P.C.'s for each turn throughout the game.
>
> I don't like such rules. Rules have to be consistent throughout the
> game, regardless the turn #.
I would have prefered to alter the set up and give each of them one
or two extra units to be placed on the board before the Russian turn 1
move.
> > 4) Friendly planes may not land on a newly built carrier for 1 full 5
> > player cycle. In other words, if Britian builds a carrier on its first
> > turn of the game, USA would not be able to land its planes on the British
> > carrier until the second USA turn of the game.
>
> Why not for entire game? Anyway, it sounds stupid that planes from one
> country use carrier from other.
Well you sight historical presidence for liking the sub rule, but
ignore there is historical presidence for using other countries planes on
carriers. In fact for historical accuracy the U.S. should be able to
simply give planes and transports to the British that would then remain
under British control until the U.S. decides they want them back. Many
British carriers operated American built fighters during the war and under
lend-lease the U.S. gave the British over a hundred small vessels
including transports, landing craft, and destroyers. Also under the
reciprical agreement the British carrier Victorious came under the command
of the U.S. navy for about six months in 1943.
> > 5) The Allies may not move vessels into the Baltic Sea until both Western
> > Europe and Norway-Finland are controlled by the Allies.
>
> Great rule, but for the sake of consistence, it had to have the same
> influence on German naval movement too. My group introduced that as a
> house rule with exception of subs which can move in non-combat if only
> one territory is friendly.
> Also this rule is valid for Gibraltar, only side who owns it can pass
> surface vessels through it (except for non-combat sub movement) and
> Bospor (only side who owns Turkey can pass vessels through it, without
> exception for subs).
I've come up with my own variation on this. Instead of saying they
can't even try I'd like to try including shore bombardments. It would
work similar to AA fire in that whoever owns the straight (both if one
ones each side) would get one shot at each vessel passing through, hitting
on a 1, and the casualties would be removed before any other combat began.
This would make amphibious assults in these areas very chancy since
loosing one loaded transport could certainly mean the difference between
an attack suceeding or failing.
T.H. van den Doel
>
> > > 3) Germany and Japan get five additional I.P.C.'s on the first build. In
> > > other words Germany gets 37 I.P.C's and Japan gets 30 I.P.C.'s to build
> > > units with on turn one. This applies to the first turn *only*. They do
> > > *not* get five additional I.P.C.'s for each turn throughout the game.
> >
> > I don't like such rules. Rules have to be consistent throughout the
> > game, regardless the turn #.
>
> I would have prefered to alter the set up and give each of them one
> or two extra units to be placed on the board before the Russian turn 1
> move.
Please specify: * which units?
* where allowed to place?
>
> I've come up with my own variation on this. Instead of saying they
> can't even try I'd like to try including shore bombardments. It would
> work similar to AA fire in that whoever owns the straight (both if one
> ones each side) would get one shot at each vessel passing through, hitting
> on a 1, and the casualties would be removed before any other combat began.
> This would make amphibious assults in these areas very chancy since
> loosing one loaded transport could certainly mean the difference between
> an attack suceeding or failing.
Have you played with this rule?
Please tell me your experience.
THEun,
Michael.Schneider
In article <3348FDD1...@neptun.design.etk.ericsson.se>, Drazen
Kramaric <etk...@neptun.design.etk.ericsson.se> wrote:
> > If we're playing *with* Russia first-attack and I'm Germany, I will
> > concede the game to you before you're done buying your first turn builds,
> > get outa my chair and go fetch Shogun.
>
> Why? Almost all "Allies always win" strategies are based that there
> would be no any kind of sustained defense of Asia. Therefore Japan has
> an open route towards Russia, as soon as it builds some IC on mainland.
> If Germany succede to take Egypt on first round (likely) and Japan take
> India, we could have a race for capitols.
With Russia-first-attack there is a 0% chance (with competent play)
that Germany will take Kurelia, and a 100% chance that large forces of US
and UK material will soon be stationed there, then in Moscow.
They will then proceed to triple-punch the (seperated) Axis powers to
pieces, where one allied power makes an attack on a particular region, and
the other two mop up and reinforce.
The Axis powers do not have that ability because they cannot combine
their forces. And watching Japanese forces trudge across Siberia on their
way to Moscow has all the breath-taking excitement of mold growing on old
bread.
The only capitol "raced" upon is Berlin. About the time Japan's ICs (or
fleet of Tr) begin pumping tanks into Siberia, Moscow is more than
well-defended, and the allies are diverting surplus cash to overwhelming
fleets of bombers for strategic bombbardment and annihilation of Axis
pockets of resistance.
~~~
Can the Axis win, stock rules outa the MB box?
Sure they can....some of the time.
But it's not really a "strategic wargame" played that way.
It's a bored retiree plugging tokens into a slot-machine: "Ten-percent
of the time my attack here on the first turn gives me the game!" *Yank*
!kerching! Ding! Ding! Ding! Cherry-Peach-Orange *Shit!* Aw crap, set 'em
up again!
> Anyway, game needs changes but real changes, no special rules like "no
> Russian first turn attack", but different setup which would make such an
> attack more risky for Russians and definitely more space on Eastern
> Front. WaW map is good basis but it had to accomodated to Spring 1942.
Yeah. But you have to buy another *game* to play World at War.
Michael.Schneider
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970408...@newton.pconline.com>,
The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> wrote:
> I know MB's position on this, but you don't really expect them to
> admitt the game they made is lobsided do you? Yes this is all
> historically accurate. The problem is that if a game is entirely
> historically accurate you know who will win before you open the box so
> there is no point in playing. Axis and Allies, despite all its abitrary
> rules and gross abstractions suffers from this syndrome. If the Allies
> stick basically to historically proven strategies (as much as the game
> will allow) the Axis can only win by luck of the dice.
Actually, the Allies *lose* if they pursue "historically accurate"
strategies: The United States builds a huge Pacific fleet and harries
Japan. The Allies attack Germany via massive Normandy invasion from
England (risky as retreat is not an option, and Russia is left undefended
to Japan without a bazillion divisions of Allied material stationed in
Kurelia.
In reality, Russia was under 0.00% threat by Japan.
(How much gas would a nipper tank consume driving from Shanghai to Moscow?)
. . . . o o o o o +----------------------------------+
_____ o | Settlers of Catan, Mayfair Rails,|
____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. | board games F2F at the drop of a |
[________]_|__|________)< | hat. Minnesota Twin Cities area! |
oo oo 'oo OOOO-| oo\_ +--------------Mike:1-612-529-7168-+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1st Minnesota gamers: 7pm Fri, "The Source": NW corner Snelling & Larpentuer
in Roseville. Also: "Phoenix Games" and "Red Dragon Hobby" along Lake Street
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
+--+--+
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
> I know MB's position on this, but you don't really expect them to
> admitt the game they made is lobsided do you? Yes this is all
> historically accurate. The problem is that if a game is entirely
> historically accurate you know who will win before you open the box so
> there is no point in playing. Axis and Allies, despite all its abitrary
> rules and gross abstractions suffers from this syndrome. If the Allies
> stick basically to historically proven strategies (as much as the game
> will allow) the Axis can only win by luck of the dice.
This probably belongs more to some history group but in Spring 1942 Axis
could win. Germans screwed up in Eastern Front at Caucausus and
Stalingrad. They could smash Russians if they stuck with their original
plan which called for taking of Caucausus and holding the bridgehead
across Don River towards Stalingrad.
They could smash British in Egypt with only a part of reinforcements
they sent to Tunisia after Torch landings.
US won battle of Midway thanks to Jamamoto's stupid strategy and
Nagumo's even more stupid conduct of battle. There wass no codebreaking
which could help Americans with 2.5 carriers vs 6 carriers and 11
battleships.
MB made unbalanced game because they actually believed fairytales about
WW2. Unfortunately, they are not alone in that bussiness. I hardly
believed that any WW2 game would ever sell in Russia, because most
wargames deals with Russia as weak partner in Great Alliance which
couldn't survive without Allied help. The fact that Russian player
cannot defend itself has nothing to do with history. It is a consequence
of extreme western bias in many western wargames.
> Can you be more specific on exactly what changes you feel should be
> made to the set up? Are you saying fewer Russian infantry in the far
> east or more Japanese begining on the main land? How would you make the
> Soviet attack in Europe more costly without reducing their defense to the
> point that Germany could instantly over run Karelia?
No Russian armor in Far East, less infantry in Far East.
More Russian infantry on the Eastern Front, MUCH more German infantry in
Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. There is no place for armor
in Western Europe, it should be placed on Eastern Front.
> Historically good, but had little if any effect on the game. In the
> war subs were used more for hunting convoys and merchant ships; they
> rarely went after fighting ships. Unfortunately the game has no
> representation at all of the fact that the U.S. supplied England and
> Russia with vital resources like food, weapons, and amunition without
> which neither would have been able to hold on as well as they did.
Again, in GP Expansion 1 U-boats are has to be found in order to be
attacked and when attacked they can submerge (but stay in the same
seazone) after one round of battle.
> Well you sight historical presidence for liking the sub rule, but
> ignore there is historical presidence for using other countries planes on
> carriers. In fact for historical accuracy the U.S. should be able to
> simply give planes and transports to the British that would then remain
> under British control until the U.S. decides they want them back. Many
> British carriers operated American built fighters during the war and under
> lend-lease the U.S. gave the British over a hundred small vessels
> including transports, landing craft, and destroyers. Also under the
> reciprical agreement the British carrier Victorious came under the command
> of the U.S. navy for about six months in 1943.
I have no problem with some kind of land-lease rule providing that the
rule which would forbide Western allies from any kind of non-combat
movement within Russia's proper (including Ukraine)
Drax
The Lorax
On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, T.H. van den Doel wrote:
> Lorax wrote:
> >
> > > > 3) Germany and Japan get five additional I.P.C.'s on the first build. In
> > > > other words Germany gets 37 I.P.C's and Japan gets 30 I.P.C.'s to build
> > > > units with on turn one. This applies to the first turn *only*. They do
> > > > *not* get five additional I.P.C.'s for each turn throughout the game.
> > >
> > > I don't like such rules. Rules have to be consistent throughout the
> > > game, regardless the turn #.
> >
> > I would have prefered to alter the set up and give each of them one
> > or two extra units to be placed on the board before the Russian turn 1
> > move.
>
> Please specify: * which units?
> * where allowed to place?
I'm not sure which, but I thought the best way to do it might be
that after all the scheduled units are in place give the Japanese and
Germans each 8 points to build new units that can be placed at any
factory site. This would allow the Japanese to have either an additonal
transport to reinforce the mainland or invade an island on the first
turn, or an extra submarine that could be used in the attack on the
American carrier in Hawaii. The Germans could have an extra transport in
the Mediterainian to amphibious assault Africa or a sub there to attack
the British sub or battleship at Gibralter. Alternatively they could
have a sub in the Baltic to attack the British home fleet, or a 2nd
transport to bring more infantry into Karelia on the first turn, or just
build another tank and infantry in Germany. I'm sure there are other
possible ways these extra units could be used. Basically I think that
Germany and Japan could each benifite greatly to by having one additional
sub or transport to use on their first turn attacks.
> > I've come up with my own variation on this. Instead of saying they
> > can't even try I'd like to try including shore bombardments. It would
> > work similar to AA fire in that whoever owns the straight (both if one
> > ones each side) would get one shot at each vessel passing through, hitting
> > on a 1, and the casualties would be removed before any other combat began.
> > This would make amphibious assults in these areas very chancy since
> > loosing one loaded transport could certainly mean the difference between
> > an attack suceeding or failing.
>
> Have you played with this rule?
> Please tell me your experience.
This was just an idea I have, barrowed it from a naval game I have
been designing on the side over the last several years. Haven't tried
using it in a live game of Axis and Allies yet.
Oh, and for the idea of the subs being exempt from the rules for
straights, I strongly disagree. The straights are shallow, narrow bits of
water that were always heavily patroled by short range aircraft, sea
planes, coastal defense vessels and what-not. A sub would not have
significantly better chance passing through undetected than a surface
ship.
One rule I would like to try is a detection role for subs. That they
could pass through an enemy controled sea area and on into an adjecent
area without stopping or being attaced if they made a die role. I'd try
this with a 50% chance of sucess, 1-3 the sub is detected and the enemy
ships attack it, 4-6 it slips by unnoticed. On the same token you might
allow it to remain in an enemy controled area when it finished its move.
Subs also then could not be attacked unless you first sent units to seach
for them. If they are actively searching a sub should only hide on a 1 or
2. Of course since subs would be considered "hiding" on all opponents
turns they would no longer be able to block movement through an area or
prevent builds from being placed. Instead if a unit moves through a sub's
area the sub may either allow the enemy ships past without revealing
itself, or the sub may decide to engade the enemy ships. If the sub
engages the enemy ships can not move any futher and a regular naval combat
takes place in that area. The sub would get a first shot on the first
round only as a suprise attack, with any looses being removed before
return fire. On all other rounds the sub fights normaly as if it were
defending. Of course the sub has the option of withdrawing at the end of
any round and the opponent's forces have the option of withdrawing at the
end of any round back to the are they originally entered from.
I do believe that 'brains are mightier than brawn'.
Rune Wilhelmsen
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970408...@newton.pconline.com>, The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com> writes:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Drazen Kramaric wrote:
>
>
> > > 1) Russia will not be allowed to attack during the first turn.
> >
> > It is the most known rule I think. In my opinion, it would be better to
> > change initial setup to make Soviet attack more costly and in the case
> > of Far East, almost suicidal.
>
> Can you be more specific on exactly what changes you feel should be
> made to the set up? Are you saying fewer Russian infantry in the far
> east or more Japanese begining on the main land? How would you make the
> Soviet attack in Europe more costly without reducing their defense to the
> point that Germany could instantly over run Karelia?
>
You do not have to remove any Russian forces.Take the Russian units
(infantry) from Karelia and place them in Russia/Moscow.
Rune Wilhelmsen ru...@ifi.uio.no
joseph oberlander
I have played the following setup with a good deal of success:
1:Russia *CAN* attack anyplace it wants.
2:To compensate its initial losses, Germany gets Ind Tech(It in reality
had this, which is why it was so incredibly costly in materials and men to
take)
3:After the first round, random turn order.
This balances the game against the Allied cheesey tactics, gives Germany
time to get more IPCs(for economic victory), and makes its capital as
unassailable as Japan, Russia(due to allied reinforcement), UK, or the US
The initial bulk of the German forces are smashed by Russia on the first
turn, and Germany can build a LOT of forces, but has a hard time
advancing due to having less planes and tanks until turn 2 or 3(by which
time the Allies have transport stacks, reserves in Russia, etc.)
Japan gets hammered by Russia the first turn. This sets them back two
turns.
The random order makes it MUCH MUCH more exciting. In effect, due to poor
planning on Japan's side, and quick response and some luck on America's
side, America got two turns in a row at Midway.
All things being equal, this makes the Axis about 80% likely to win,
*BUT*, the game is about 90% Allies with standard rules(no mods), so it
almost balances out.
Germany is a little more effective in attacking, and much better on
defense. Russia has a decent position(as opposed to no-attack-rule),
and the game has a "fog of war" feel.
Joe
Jim Riley
In article <334a4e52....@news.knoware.nl> Henk Poell wrote:
>My current 'houserules':
>- let russia attack first turn
>- highest bidder takes allies
>- axis places extra initials units, worth high-bid IPC's
>
>Numbers like 14 or 15 are usual... Extra tanks are very popular,
>in Finland, Asia or Africa for example. Somehow I believe the
>number should be higher for balanced play, but we like playing
>Axis... Anyone else experience with this?
The no-Soviet first turn attack makes a big difference. It protects two
Axis fighters, and decreases the USSR income by 6, and increases the
Axis income by 6 (with some residual effect). It is almost like if
you were bidding, you could bid 30-40 to not allow a Soviet attack.
Putting an extra tank in Asia or Africa can completely tip the
battle. This will continue to pay dividends down the road in more
income for you, and less for the Allies. A bid of 5 IPC in units
placed at the front is almost like giving you five extra IPC every
turn. In Europe, it can transform the results. In a monster battle
for Karelia, a couple of extra tanks at the start can mean five or
more additional surviving units.
We also used a paratroop rule (this helps Germany reinforce in Africa
and Japan to advance quicker in Asia), and would only need to bid 7 or
8.
--
Jim Riley
Drazen Kramaric
Michael.Schneider wrote:
> With Russia-first-attack there is a 0% chance (with competent play)
> that Germany will take Kurelia,
In first turn perhaps. However Germans would in first turn destroy any
Soviet forces in Ukraine or East Europe. Then what? If Soviets attacked
Ukraine in first turn, in second turn Germans would be firmly
established in Eastern Europe with fighters, AAA and lots of troops.
Therefore Soviets can attack Ukraine again and then have to decide
whether to defend Karelia or not? If they went after Eastern Europe,
Germans from Ukraine could either go east in Caucausus or west to help
recapture Eastern Europe. So, in second turn Soviets would probably
attack Ukraine. In second turn Germany could launch all-out attack on
Karelia and smash Soviet forces before Western help. Even if they don't
take Karelia with overwhelming power Germany can destroy from 2 to 4
allied fighters in that battle.
> and a 100% chance that large forces of US
> and UK material will soon be stationed there,
Germany could easily destroy UK fleet, Gibraltar BB and one of TRS in
Atlantic and take Egypt too. That is 39 IPCs after first turn IIRC.
> then in Moscow.
> They will then proceed to triple-punch the (seperated) Axis powers to
> pieces, where one allied power makes an attack on a particular region, and
> the other two mop up and reinforce.
Great thing if situation develop in that direction.
> And watching Japanese forces trudge across Siberia on their
> way to Moscow has all the breath-taking excitement of mold growing on old
> bread.
Than you obviously never played against competent Japanese player.
> The only capitol "raced" upon is Berlin. About the time Japan's ICs (or
> fleet of Tr) begin pumping tanks into Siberia,
Third, fourth round.
Moscow is more than
> well-defended,
Probably, but Germans don't have to take Russia in order to win.
> and the allies are diverting surplus cash to overwhelming
> fleets of bombers for strategic bombbardment
What surplus cash? Any German player would welcome Allied investment in
Bombers instead of Moscow protecting fighter (awful and totally
ahistoric rule).
and annihilation of Axis
> pockets of resistance.
Sometimes, sometimes not.
> Can the Axis win, stock rules outa the MB box?
>
> Sure they can....some of the time.
Of course they can. Chess is also "unbalanced" game. White player has
more chance to win, but I never met any request for changing of rules or
"white player always win" if both players are equally good.
> But it's not really a "strategic wargame" played that way.
No, it isn't but it could be better and yet no as complicated as
hexgrid&counter games.
> Yeah. But you have to buy another *game* to play World at War.
If you know something about history and have a nose for what can be
implemented and what can't, you can enjoy Axis very much.
Drax
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
>
> One rule I would like to try is a detection role for subs.
I suggest you take $20 and purchase Gamers Paradise "World War II,
Expansion" for use with Axis and Allies.
They have:
Subs have to be found before attacked. They could be searched for with
destroyers/escorts (new units 8 IPC) or by aircraft.
Each unit has a one die roll. If 2 or less rolled sub is spotted and can
be attacked. Those destroyers or escorts which actually rolled 2 or less
can attack and if they roll another 2 or less sub is hit and cannot
defend, If they miss sub submerges BUT STAY IN THE SAME SEAZONE.
Aircraft spot at 2 or less but if one plane spots all aircraft which
performed search can attack. Fighter kill at 3 and bombers at 4 but
after one round subs can submerge AND STAY IN THE SAME SEAZONE.
Other vessels cannot attack subs but can attack other vessels in the sub
seazone. After battle they have to withdraw from sub controlled seazone.
And much more...
There is one booklet with rules in package and different counters
representing cruisers, destroyers and escorts. They offer miniatures
also but you have to purchase them separately.
Drax
The Lorax
On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Drazen Kramaric wrote:
> This probably belongs more to some history group but in Spring 1942 Axis
> could win. Germans screwed up in Eastern Front at Caucausus and
> Stalingrad. They could smash Russians if they stuck with their original
> plan which called for taking of Caucausus and holding the bridgehead
> across Don River towards Stalingrad.
Germany mostly got bogged down in Russia by the weather and by
underestimating the Soviet people. I forget which commander it was but
one of the German officers said that "it is like an elephant attacking an
army of ants. The elephant will kill thousands, perhaps millions, but in
the end it will fall to the sheer weight of their numbers".
Russia and also England were dependant on the US supplies to keep
their armies fighting effectively, that was the entire strategy behind the
u-boat campain, to cut off supplies and starve England. I feel one of the
major problems with Axis and Allies is that there is no representation at
all of supply lines and convoys. The primary impact of Germany's navy was
its effect on merchant shipping which is completely ignored in this game.
> US won battle of Midway thanks to Jamamoto's stupid strategy and
> Nagumo's even more stupid conduct of battle. There wass no codebreaking
> which could help Americans with 2.5 carriers vs 6 carriers and 11
> battleships.
The US won the battle of Midway because of incredibly poor die
rolls by the Japanese. It was simply luck that the Japanese did not find
the main American carrier group and that the American planes did so much
damage to the Japanese carriers in such a short time.
> No Russian armor in Far East, less infantry in Far East.
> More Russian infantry on the Eastern Front, MUCH more German infantry in
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. There is no place for armor
> in Western Europe, it should be placed on Eastern Front.
I would tend to agree with no armour but more infantry on the
Eastern front. On the other hand if you give t he Germans "MUCH more
German infantry in Ukraine, Easter Europe and Souther Europe" [sic] you
have just given Russia to the Germans without them having any chance to
defend themselves, something that you yourself just argued against.
> Again, in GP Expansion 1 U-boats are has to be found in order to be
> attacked and when attacked they can submerge (but stay in the same
> seazone) after one round of battle.
I've never played any of the expansions but I do favor some form of
searching rules for attacking subs. I went into my own ideas on that in
another post.
> I have no problem with some kind of land-lease rule providing that the
> rule which would forbide Western allies from any kind of non-combat
> movement within Russia's proper (including Ukraine)
In game turns I'd take that as the Allied player. If I can park US
ships in the UK and let them perform with the British as a single group
it would make invasions of Europe, Karelia, and Africa *so* such easier!
With that advantage I doubt I'd ever need to move other forces through
Russia in non-combat. On the other hand, in terms of historical accuracy
I have only seen these non-combat moves (except aircraft) happen when
Russia was already in desperate straits at which point I can't see them
refusing the assistance of some British tanks and alowing them to go
where they are needed.
May whatever gods you see watch over you all your days.
<Lo...@pconline.com>
St. Paul, Minnesota
Brian Bankler
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------56ED203A70A5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--
Favorite game rules #2:
"Expanding Sphere Generators release at the appropriate distance and do
not expand."
-- Star Fleet Battles (paraphrased)
--------------56ED203A70A5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="11apr97.full"
Well, we have three new voters this month, so the threshold
bumps up to 11. MEDICI takes a big slide from a 7.4 rating (and 3rd
place) to a 7.0 rating, giving it 6th place. Other games losing ground
are Hare and Tortoise (7th -> 10th), 1856 (8th -> 11th), Elfenroads
(10th -> 15th). Can't Stop falls out of the top 15 (13th -> 17th).
Most of the games sliding up kept the same score...The average score
of the list fell a bit.
For info on how to vote, send email to ban...@rtp.ericsson.se
Total Games on List = 1912
Total Votes Counted = 4598
Number of Contributors = 57
Average of the List = 5.44
Threshold (minimum number of votes needed to appear) = 11
Best Games
Rank Game Name Average +- std. (votes)
----------------------------------------------------
1 Modern Art 7.76 +- 1.68 (23)
2 Die Siedler Von Catan 7.58 +- 2.19 (26)
3 Outpost 7.40 +- 1.50 (21)
4 El Grande 7.07 +- 1.73 (14)
5 Dune 7.04 +- 2.20 (23)
6 Medici 7.00 +- 1.95 (12)
7 Go 6.92 +- 2.90 (13)
8 Cosmic Encounter 6.92 +- 2.23 (32)
9 Titan 6.88 +- 2.79 (26)
10 Hare And Tortoise 6.88 +- 1.96 (17)
11 1856 6.83 +- 2.62 (12)
12 Bridge 6.81 +- 2.58 (21)
13 Advanced Civilization 6.75 +- 2.15 (24)
14 Illuminati 6.74 +- 1.47 (29)
15 Elfenroads 6.70 +- 2.91 (15)
16 Iron Dragon 6.59 +- 1.96 (16)
17 Can'T Stop 6.54 +- 1.57 (14)
18 Set 6.46 +- 1.84 (14)
19 Airlines 6.43 +- 2.21 (14)
20 Acquire 6.43 +- 2.04 (27)
21 1830 6.33 +- 2.75 (24)
22 Civilization 6.32 +- 2.05 (34)
23 Adel Verpflichtet 6.31 +- 1.78 (21)
24 Awful Green Things From 6.25 +- 1.22 (12)
25 Circus Maximus 6.21 +- 1.76 (17)
26 Hearts 6.18 +- 2.05 (19)
27 Railway Rivals 6.17 +- 1.34 (12)
28 Shark 6.15 +- 1.52 (13)
29 Kremlin 6.14 +- 2.16 (25)
30 Manhattan 6.12 +- 1.59 (16)
31 Merchant Of Venus 6.07 +- 2.06 (21)
32 Wiz War 6.03 +- 2.32 (20)
33 Rette Sich Wer Kann 5.96 +- 0.88 (13)
34 Liars Dice 5.92 +- 2.43 (12)
35 Britannia 5.88 +- 2.10 (21)
36 Santa Fe 5.85 +- 2.23 (13)
37 Diplomacy 5.75 +- 2.70 (36)
38 6 Nimmt 5.68 +- 1.94 (14)
39 Nuclear War 5.65 +- 1.62 (17)
40 Scrabble 5.63 +- 2.13 (27)
41 Empire Builder 5.62 +- 1.41 (16)
42 Eurorails 5.58 +- 1.90 (18)
43 History Of The World 5.52 +- 2.76 (31)
44 Junta 5.44 +- 1.96 (26)
***** Average = 5.44 *****
45 Republic Of Rome 5.39 +- 3.20 (18)
46 Cribbage 5.38 +- 1.26 (13)
47 Pit 5.23 +- 1.47 (15)
48 Jenga 5.23 +- 2.02 (11)
49 Family Business 5.22 +- 1.73 (18)
50 Roborally 5.17 +- 2.41 (24)
51 Third Reich 5.09 +- 2.55 (11)
52 Backgammon 5.08 +- 2.24 (19)
53 1835 5.07 +- 1.49 (14)
54 Magic: The Gathering 5.00 +- 2.75 (23)
55 British Rails 4.92 +- 1.78 (12)
56 Shogun 4.91 +- 2.14 (17)
57 Abalone 4.91 +- 2.51 (11)
58 Star Fleet Battles 4.88 +- 2.52 (17)
59 Stratego 4.70 +- 1.22 (20)
60 Kings N Things 4.67 +- 1.97 (12)
61 Axis And Allies 4.66 +- 2.17 (31)
62 Chess 4.62 +- 2.32 (20)
63 Kingmaker 4.62 +- 1.71 (24)
64 Milles Bourne 4.60 +- 1.45 (15)
65 Fortress America 4.58 +- 2.81 (12)
66 Clue 4.53 +- 1.56 (16)
67 Talisman 4.50 +- 2.57 (23)
68 Risk 4.49 +- 1.66 (34)
69 Car Wars 4.47 +- 1.23 (17)
70 Maharaja 4.38 +- 1.87 (12)
71 Uno 4.34 +- 2.17 (19)
72 Yahtzee 4.17 +- 1.50 (18)
73 Squad Leader 4.06 +- 2.70 (17)
74 Pictionary 4.03 +- 1.92 (20)
75 Trivial Pursuit 3.94 +- 2.21 (26)
76 Monopoly 3.88 +- 1.67 (30)
77 The Great Dalmuti 3.81 +- 2.45 (13)
78 Inwo 3.54 +- 2.22 (13)
79 Supremacy 2.89 +- 2.81 (19)
Contributors:
Aaron D. Fuegi (aar...@cgl.bu.edu)
Aaron Thorne (awt...@nic.smsu.edu)
Adam Huby (a...@crosfield.co.uk)
Allan Goodall (all...@kodak.com)
Andreas Keirat (FAS...@FISTOWN.han.de)
Anonymous
Anthony C Kam (ant...@MIT.EDU)
Benjamin Matthews (matt...@utdallas.edu)
Brent Jackson (br...@advgroup.co.nz)
Brian Bankler (ban...@rtp.ericsson.se)
Bruno Faidutti (faid...@imaginet.fr)
Charles Lewis (Gam...@aol.com)
Chris Esko (ce...@andrew.cmu.edu)
Chris M. Dickson (chris....@keble.oxford.ac.uk)
Craig M. Reece (sh...@jetcity.com)
David Finberg (dfin...@math.mit.edu)
David Roe (dr...@telecom.ie)
Doug Ferrell (dfer...@adoc.xerox.com)
Frank Sven Nestel (nes...@am.uni-erlagen.de)
GREG ALEKNEVICUS (gr...@pacificcoast.net)
Graham Wills (gwi...@research.bell-labs.com)
Harald Schrapers (H.SCH...@MHB.gun.de)
Hunter Johnson (jhun...@io.com)
Isaac Ji Kuo (k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu)
J. R. Tracy (wyo...@pipeline.com)
JOHN HARRINGTON (jo...@fiendishgames.demon.co.uk)
Jim Ferguson
Jim Musser (jim...@pop.wwa.com)
Jimmy Harnsberger
Joe Huber (hu...@rock.enet.dec.com)
Kevin Wilson (cke...@aol.com)
Klaus Herrmanns (kla...@spinup.tp3.ruhr-uni-bochum.de)
Kurt Adam (ma...@uu.edu)
LeRoy Pick (cr...@bnr.ca )
Mark Bassett (ma...@iisc.co.uk)
Mark Lilback
Mel Nicholson (m...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
Michael Keller (Wgre...@aol.com)
Mike McGillivray (mcgi...@duke.usask.ca)
Nick Sauer
Nigel Buckle (buc...@westminster.ac.uk)
Peter McLachlan (p...@nis.lanl.gov)
Peter Wotruba (pe...@chem.ucsd.edu)
Randy Cox (RanCo...@aol.com)
Rg...@aol.com
Richard Vickery (ucg...@ucl.ac.uk)
Rick Heli (Richar...@Eng.Sun.COM)
Roger Cox (Uses Randy Cox's address)
Stephen Graham (gra...@ee.washington.edu)
Steve Thomas (Steve....@isltd.insignia.com)
Thomas Hilgert (ga...@inga.augusta.de)
Tim Isakson (tjis...@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com)
Tom Granvold (Thomas....@Eng.Sun.COM)
Trevor Dewey (tde...@virtual-cafe.com)
W. M. Yearick (yea...@mindspring.com)
Warren J. Dew (Psych...@aol.com)
--------------56ED203A70A5--
Joshua Kaufman
>We also used a paratroop rule (this helps Germany reinforce in Africa
>and Japan to advance quicker in Asia), and would only need to bid 7 or
>8.
How does the paratroop rule work??? I am curious about that.
Actually there is one rule in World at War that I like, that I wish
Axis and Allies would use. It is the ability to build infantry in
any land that you control at the beginning of your turn. I think in a
way it hurts Japan's advance in Russia, because the Russians can
reinforce the back in one turn by building infantry (up to the value
of the territory), however it helps the Axis make Africa more
difficult for the allies to take. So I think it isn't a bad rule.
Jim Riley
In article <334f60fe...@news.dx.net> Joshua Kaufman wrote:
>>We also used a paratroop rule (this helps Germany reinforce in Africa
>>and Japan to advance quicker in Asia), and would only need to bid 7 or
>>8.
>
>How does the paratroop rule work??? I am curious about that.
Bombers can be used as air transport (instead of combat or strategic
bombing). They can switch roles on each turn.
Air transports can carry one infantry unit. They are limited to
a total of six spaces of movement.
They can fly to the infantry unit; then fly to the infantry's
destination; then fly back (on) to the their final base as long
as the total distance is six spaces or less. [1]
The infantry parachute into an enemy controlled territory. A die is
rolled. If it is a 1, the infantry is eliminated, otherwise it will
fight in the ensuing battle for the territory. There is no retreat from
a battle with successfully paradropped infantry (same rule as applied
to amphibious assaults).
Air transports are subject to AA fire (which occurs before any
paradrop), but do not participate in any combat.
Air transports can be used in non-combat (if not used during the
combat movement). If being used to reinforce a newly-captured
territory, they can not land, and the infantry must be airdropped
with a die rolled for loss.
Examples:
Bomber in Japan becomes air transport.
Moves to Manchuria (2 spaces).
Picks up infantry.
Transport flies to Evenki (2 spaces, 4 total).
Infantry dropped (roll die for survival).
Surviving infantry participate in battle.
Transport flies to Manchuria where it lands (2 spaces, 6 total).
Bomber in Germany becomes air transport.
Moves to WEuro, picks up infantry.
Transport flies to Karelia, faces AA.
Infantry dropped (roll die for survival).
Surviving infantry participate in battle.
Transport returns to Germany.
Bomber in UK becomes air transport.
Transports infantry to Soviet-held Karelia.
Infantry unload (no dice roll).
Transport returns to UK.
[1] Originally we required the bomber to start in the same territory
as the infantry, and end up in the same space unless an airdrop
occured. This seemed to limit use, and leave bombers in weak
defensive positions.
>Actually there is one rule in World at War that I like, that I wish
>Axis and Allies would use. It is the ability to build infantry in
>any land that you control at the beginning of your turn. I think in a
>way it hurts Japan's advance in Russia, because the Russians can
>reinforce the back in one turn by building infantry (up to the value
>of the territory), however it helps the Axis make Africa more
>difficult for the allies to take. So I think it isn't a bad rule.
I think some people use a militia rule, where "empty" territories
are defended with a die roll of 1.
--
Jim Riley
Drazen Kramaric
Joshua Kaufman wrote:
> How does the paratroop rule work??? I am curious about that.
In Gamers Paradise Expansion II they took a little different approach
than most of other expansions and house rules.
There are air transport counters which cost 2 IPCs each. You purchase
them on one turn and put them at your capital.
On the other turn you purchase parachute insignia counter and promote
any infantry unit you wish to parachuter before any kind of movement.
Such unit can attack up to 2 zones (intervening one can be sea zone),
they have to endure one round of AA fire if AA gun is present, it cannot
retreat and its attack strength is 2 in first round of battle (element
of surprise) and 1 thereafter unless parachuters were accompanied with
other units (in that case attack strenght is only 1). If more
parachuters attack same territory all of them must take off from same
territory.
Also you can transport one infantry in non-comabt movement by spending 2
IPC for transport in some of the previous turns at distance of 2 zones.
> Actually there is one rule in World at War that I like, that I wish
> Axis and Allies would use. It is the ability to build infantry in
> any land that you control at the beginning of your turn.
My group introduced that as house rule but with some limits due to
historic flavor.
Russia can build infantry in these territories without factory:
Ukraine 2
Caucausus 2
Kazakh 1
Novosibirsk 1
Yakut 1
Soviet Far East 1
We used (IPC value-1) formula as max No of infantry which could be
built.
Germany can build:
Eastern Europe 2 (representing Axis minor allies)
Norway-Finland 1 (representing Finnish troops)
UK
Eastern Canada 2
India 2
South Africa 1
Australia 1
US
Brasil 2
Mexico 1
China 1
Sinkyang 1
We left out all teritories which were occupied one way or the other for
purpose of this rule, plus Evenki and Alaska which we dropped because of
lack of population there.
Drax
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
> I feel one of the
> major problems with Axis and Allies is that there is no representation at
> all of supply lines and convoys. The primary impact of Germany's navy was
> its effect on merchant shipping which is completely ignored in this game.
If Allies are forbidden to perform non-combat movement in Russia's own
territories (no fighters could land at Karelia or Russia to build up the
defence, or no allied ground troops could fight on the Eastern Front
from Norway or Karelia; they would have to liberate Karelia in order to
come there and they couldn't move out of there unless by combat
movement) Russians would need some kind of Land Lease rule. Add rules
from Expansion I by Gamers Paradise which improves U-boat warfare and
you have Battle for Atlantic which could end in both ways.
> The US won the battle of Midway because of incredibly poor die
> rolls by the Japanese. It was simply luck that the Japanese did not find
> the main American carrier group and that the American planes did so much
> damage to the Japanese carriers in such a short time.
Yes, but would you send only carrier against US Fleet and leave those
two battleships behind as Yamamoto did?
> I would tend to agree with no armour but more infantry on the
> Eastern front. On the other hand if you give t he Germans "MUCH more
> German infantry in Ukraine, Easter Europe and Souther Europe" [sic] you
> have just given Russia to the Germans without them having any chance to
> defend themselves, something that you yourself just argued against.
But remember, Russia could attack in first turn, only that attack would
be more risky and of course you have to carefully place those additional
infantry (using A&A odds calculator as much as possible) in order to
achieve overall goal, balancing the game and getting as much historical
accuracy as possible. (without historical flavor I would play something
else, but I like playing WW2 games).
What's the problem with more infantry at Southern Europe. Italians held
two armies there plus one German Army at Balkans.
> In game turns I'd take that as the Allied player. If I can park US
> ships in the UK and let them perform with the British as a single group
> it would make invasions of Europe, Karelia, and Africa *so* such easier!
I was talking about lending the money not units. Also it wouldn't be
possible for US player just to give IPCs from hand to hand. There would
be percentage limit and request for free path thru seazones from Eastern
US to United Kingdom or Karelia.
> With that advantage I doubt I'd ever need to move other forces through
> Russia in non-combat. On the other hand, in terms of historical accuracy
> I have only seen these non-combat moves (except aircraft)
That's the point, I am tired of half a dozen western fighters in Russia.
Drax
T.H. van den Doel
What about areas that where 'occupied' at the start of the game.
Like France/Western Europe?
> plus Evenki and Alaska which we dropped because of
> lack of population there.
I like that 'realistic' modification.
Very interesting stuff. But what about Japan. May Japan build inf. in
non-IC areas?
THeun,
.
Paul Thronson
> > > Actually there is one rule in World at War that I like, that I wish
> > > Axis and Allies would use. It is the ability to build infantry in
> > > any land that you control at the beginning of your turn.
> >
> > My group introduced that as house rule but with some limits due to
> > historic flavor.
(lots of stuff snipped here)
Here's a variant that is not so complex as this one, but I think would
the game to a new height of realism. Industrial Investment Units.
Basically, this "unit" costs 4 IPC's to build and can be built subject
to same restrictions as military units and anti-air guns. IIU's can
move one per turn and can be shipped on transports at the same cost as
an armor unit. At the end of any turn, any territory's value is plus
one for each IIU that is located there. However, a territory can never
be worth more than twice its original IPC value. IIU's *CAN* increase
the number of units produced out of a limited factory. I would like to
see what everyone thinks about the idea of "investing" IPC's back into
the economy instead of saving or spending them. Is 4 IPC's too much per
unit?? Since a game may not go more than 6-7 rounds, the financial
payback might not be worth the risk compared to just building military
units to seize more territoy and defend what you already got as fast as
possible. I think that IIU's must cost 3 or 4 but I cannot decide which.
Any thoughts???
I would really be interested in hearing how it goes if anyone uses this
idea ... I think that plain white chips under the factory, or if there
is no factory, maybe under a coin, would do nicely to represent these
units.
Paul
thro...@iw.net
The Lorax
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
> Actually there is one rule in World at War that I like, that I wish
> Axis and Allies would use. It is the ability to build infantry in
> any land that you control at the beginning of your turn. I think in a
> way it hurts Japan's advance in Russia, because the Russians can
> reinforce the back in one turn by building infantry (up to the value
> of the territory), however it helps the Axis make Africa more
> difficult for the allies to take. So I think it isn't a bad rule.
I've never played World at War but this does sound like an
interesting rule. I would wonder though if this should be modified that
infantry not built at a factory might cost more? Also is there a limit to
how many infantry units can be brought on this way? I would think that
like new factories it would be limited to the point value of the territory
or perhaps just limit it to only one unit per territory.
The Lorax
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Jim Riley wrote:
> [1] Originally we required the bomber to start in the same territory
> as the infantry, and end up in the same space unless an airdrop
> occured. This seemed to limit use, and leave bombers in weak
> defensive positions.
I think it makes a lot more sense to say the infantry and bomber
have to begin in the same territory. There is of course no reason to
think the bomber has to end its move in the same territory as it could
drop the men and continue flying. I think this puts a very realistic
limit on their use.
I also question the die roll for a loss during a drop. It doesn't
make sense that their chances or landing safely are exactly the same
regardless of whether they are being dropped into a combat zone under
fire or into a friendly area. I would say that dropping into combat they
should be eliminated on a 1 or 2 and dropping into a friendly zone only
eliminated on a 1. After all the parachutes are highly visiable and
enemy infantry are very likely to start shooting machine guns and small
arms into the air when they see a hundred paratrooper coming down. In
the actual war I believe that the majority of paratroopers dropped
into enemy controled zones did not reach the ground alive.
I also like the militia rule. Empty territories should have some
defense against this.
The Lorax
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Drazen Kramaric wrote:
> The Lorax wrote:
>
> movement) Russians would need some kind of Land Lease rule. Add rules
> from Expansion I by Gamers Paradise which improves U-boat warfare and
> you have Battle for Atlantic which could end in both ways.
I don't have any of the expansions, so could you please explain the
rules you are refering to and how they work?
> > The US won the battle of Midway because of incredibly poor die
> > rolls by the Japanese. It was simply luck that the Japanese did not find
> > the main American carrier group and that the American planes did so much
> > damage to the Japanese carriers in such a short time.
>
> Yes, but would you send only carrier against US Fleet and leave those
> two battleships behind as Yamamoto did?
In the game, no, in real life, most definately! The battleships were
left behind because they were too slow and used too much fuel. Japan was
short on fuel and could not afford to waste it on large ships that had
been proven to be obselete in the age of carrier warfare. The Americans
left all their battleships behind also, because they were too slow.
Having the battleships at Midway would not have made any real difference
anyway since the problem was the Japanese never found the American fleet
so they would have had nothing to shoot at.
> > I would tend to agree with no armour but more infantry on the
> > Eastern front. On the other hand if you give t he Germans "MUCH more
> > German infantry in Ukraine, Easter Europe and Souther Europe" [sic] you
> > have just given Russia to the Germans without them having any chance to
> > defend themselves, something that you yourself just argued against.
>
> But remember, Russia could attack in first turn, only that attack would
> be more risky and of course you have to carefully place those additional
> infantry (using A&A odds calculator as much as possible) in order to
> achieve overall goal, balancing the game and getting as much historical
> accuracy as possible. (without historical flavor I would play something
> else, but I like playing WW2 games).
By doing this though you are making it that Russian *must* attack on
the first turn despite the poor odds.
BTW: I downloaded the "Axis" odds calculator you mentioned that runs
from DOS. Have only played with it a little bit but based on my own
calculations and experience I am coming to question its accuracy.
> I was talking about lending the money not units. Also it wouldn't be
> possible for US player just to give IPCs from hand to hand. There would
> be percentage limit and request for free path thru seazones from Eastern
> US to United Kingdom or Karelia.
As far as transfering money I had an idea for a convoy rule that I
think is similar to what you are talking about here. US transports with
no units on board could be sent across to UK or Russia. If they reached
one of the Allies the US player would then give the Russian or British
player 5 IPC for every transport that successfully docked. The US would
also have to forfiet to the bank 5 IPC for each transport sunk in route.
In this instance there would be no such thing as "empty" transports to
use as soak offs. All transports would be considered full of supplies.
Joshua Kaufman
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:16:25 -0500, The Lorax <lo...@pconline.com>
wrote:
It doesn't cost more to build infantry in a nonfactory hex. And it is
limited to the point value of the hex.
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
> I also question the die roll for a loss during a drop.It doesn't
> make sense that their chances or landing safely are exactly the same
> regardless of whether they are being dropped into a combat zone under
> fire or into a friendly area. I would say that dropping into combat
> they should be eliminated on a 1 or 2 and dropping into a friendly
> zone only eliminated on a 1. After all the parachutes are highly
> visiable and enemy infantry are very likely to start shooting machine
> guns and small arms into the air when they see a hundred paratrooper
> coming down. In the actual war I believe that the majority of
> paratroopers dropped into enemy controled zones did not reach the
> ground alive.
In my opinion there should be no die rolling at all. Instead attacker
should pay 1 IPC for upgrading the Infantry in Airborne unit and that
should be all. One infantry represents roughly from one corps to almost
an army varying from territory to territory (big mistake in my eyes,
designers should be consistent), so it is impossible for me that whole
corps would just dissapeared before touching the ground. Axis turn
represents roughly six months of combat, they should have the chance to
die in battle, they can't withdraw anyway.
> I also like the militia rule. Empty territories should have some
> defense against this.
Providing that Armour still can blitz through empty territory if it
survives militia defense die roll.
Drax
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
> I don't have any of the expansions, so could you please explain the
> rules you are refering to and how they work?
There are three expansion sets:
First one deals with enhanced naval rules, introducing cruisers,
destroyers, escorts, damaging capital ships, inreased production, subs
cannot be attacked unless spotted first, No russian attack, etc. I am
almost finnished with transferring it to .doc format so I could send it
to you by mail if you are interested.
Second one deasl with land combat introducing paratroops, trucks and
special forces such were US Marines, SS troops, carrier based fighters,
enlarged Pacific Ocean etc.
> In the game, no, in real life, most definately! The battleships were
> left behind because they were too slow and used too much fuel. Japan
> was short on fuel and could not afford to waste it on large ships that
> had been proven to be obselete in the age of carrier warfare.
In fact it seems that Yamamoto sent carriers in advance to destroy US
carriers so that he would be able to deal with the remnants of US
Pacific Fleet in old fashion way with his 11 battleships. The odds were
so strong against US that Yamamoto could simply announce his arrival at
Midway. The whole purpose of Midway was to drag US Fleet in open fight
and destroy it by overwhelming power which was present. Instead Yamamoto
divided his forces so they couldn't help each other and it allowed
Americans to defeat the most important part of IJN. With battleships in
vicinity Japanese could force away Americans from Midway, because USN
Navy lost one carrier, all three torpedo squadrons and many dive
bombers.
> The
> Americans left all their battleships behind also, because they were
> too slow. Having the battleships at Midway would not have made any
> real difference anyway since the problem was the Japanese never found
> the American fleet so they would have had nothing to shoot at.
Of course they found it. USS Yorktown was hit and sunk. Japanese
battleships could add their AA strength and another carrier which was
with them.
> By doing this though you are making it that Russian *must* attack on
> the first turn despite the poor odds.
Well, I thought everybody complain that Allies "always win", so Soviets
would have an option: to attack Ukraine (as historically happened) with
50:50 odds, or to fortify and do not attack at all, like they have to
according to "no Russian first attack rule". Of course, attack on
Eastern Europe should be suicidal. The whole thing started with silly
map of Eastern Front giving Karelia such strategic value which doesn't
have anything with history. There should be three intervening
territories between Germany and Russia no matter the direction. Karelia
spoilt the game.
> BTW: I downloaded the "Axis" odds calculator you mentioned that runs
> from DOS. Have only played with it a little bit but based on my own
> calculations and experience I am coming to question its accuracy.
I haven't tried it yet, butwith simple logic (two tanks score one hit in
attack and three infantry score one hit in defence) it could be settled.
> As far as transfering money I had an idea for a convoy rule that I
> think is similar to what you are talking about here. US transports
> with no units on board could be sent across to UK or Russia. If they
> reached one of the Allies the US player would then give the Russian or
> British player 5 IPC for every transport that successfully docked.
> The US would also have to forfiet to the bank 5 IPC for each transport
> sunk in route. In this instance there would be no such thing as
> "empty" transports to use as soak offs. All transports would be
> considered full of supplies.
Sounds very good to me.
Drax
The Lorax
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Drazen Kramaric wrote:
> Midway. The whole purpose of Midway was to drag US Fleet in open fight
> and destroy it by overwhelming power which was present. Instead Yamamoto
> divided his forces so they couldn't help each other and it allowed
> Americans to defeat the most important part of IJN. With battleships in
> vicinity Japanese could force away Americans from Midway, because USN
> Navy lost one carrier, all three torpedo squadrons and many dive
> bombers.
This was not the purpose at all. The Japanese wanted the island as a
naval base. They did not announce their intentions, we knew only because
we could read their radio code and they could not read ours. For the
Japanese Midway was supposed to be a sneak attack.
> > Americans left all their battleships behind also, because they were
> > too slow. Having the battleships at Midway would not have made any
> > real difference anyway since the problem was the Japanese never found
> > the American fleet so they would have had nothing to shoot at.
>
> Of course they found it. USS Yorktown was hit and sunk. Japanese
> battleships could add their AA strength and another carrier which was
> with them.
They found *one* carrier that was operating alone. They never found
the main US task force. Also the one Japanese carrier that was with the
battleships was not a front line carrier but a much smaller secondary
carrier that operated less than half the aircraft of either the Japanese
or US main carriers. It was with the battleships because it too was too
slow and would have held back the main carrier task force.
> > BTW: I downloaded the "Axis" odds calculator you mentioned that runs
> > from DOS. Have only played with it a little bit but based on my own
> > calculations and experience I am coming to question its accuracy.
>
> I haven't tried it yet, butwith simple logic (two tanks score one hit in
> attack and three infantry score one hit in defence) it could be settled.
What would this settle? Okay on the first round each side gets one
hit. Then you have one tank at 3 attacking two infantry at 4. So while I
can't give you the odds off the top of my head the infantry obviously have
an advantage.
Drazen Kramaric
The Lorax wrote:
> This was not the purpose at all.
Oh, yes it was. But unfortunately for Japanese they wasn't the only
purpose.
> The Japanese wanted the island as a naval base.
Only as a way to involve US Pacific Fleet in "decisive battle". Japanese
knew that thay wouldn't be able to supply a base on Midway, unless US
Pacific Fleet wasn't defeated, therefore they had to engage. A base on
Midway with US Fleet on Hawaii would be useless.
> we could read their radio code and they could not read ours. For the
> Japanese Midway was supposed to be a sneak attack.
That was the reason why they split their forces from Alaska to Midway.
But the whole Midway campaign has been started because of need to engage
Americans. Japanes could instead continue with attacks in Indian Ocean
or invade Ceylon, Their plan was to deceive Americans (although there
was no need for that, such was unbalance of force) take Midway by
surprise and than sink US Fleet on their way from Hawaii. They deployed
their subs accordingly. However US fleet was already there when subs
arrived on their waiting zones.
> They found *one* carrier that was operating alone. They never found
> the main US task force.
US Fleet at Midway was divided in two task forces: one around Yorktown
with Adm Fletcher who was senior to Spruance (IIRC) and the other around
Enterprise and Hornet. Both TFs had their complement of cruisers and
destroyers. Neither was "main task force". Without "decisive 5 minutes
at Midway" Japanese would probably find other TF.
> Also the one Japanese carrier that was with the battleships was not a
> front line carrier but a much smaller secondary carrier that operated
> less than half the aircraft of either the Japanese or US main
> carriers. It was with the battleships because it too was too slow and
> would have held back the main carrier task force.
Correct. But US already lost all their torpedo squadrons and lost some
dive bombers too, so one more carrier could be very useful. Also Japanes
could sail together with slower BBs and US could simply do nothing
except run to Hawaii
> What would this settle? Okay on the first round each side gets one
> hit. Then you have one tank at 3 attacking two infantry at 4. So while
> I can't give you the odds off the top of my head the infantry
> obviously have an advantage.
From my experience the most important round in big battles is the first
round. Everyone with little knowledge of Theory of Probability and
mathematical expectancy (these a literate translation form my language,
I don't know exact English words for that) know about average number of
"kills" one can expect form assault force of 6 INF, 4 ARM and 2 FTR. (4
kills). So if you see that you can kill more defenders that he can kill
your troops, you would attack because in first round you will lose INF
(1s) and he will lose also INF (2s) so you should have even more chance
for victory if first round went well. There is something like "diceless
A&A" somewhere on the web based on above maths.
Drax