Phase I: Brainstorming for Last Minute Rule Changes to Enhanced 2.1

[cousin_joe]

Hey guys,

This thread is basically just about throwing out ideas for any rule changes you'd like to see for Enhanced 2.1 Final. I will then put the most appropriate and fitting ideas into a poll to assess their general support (Phase II). For the rules also getting good general support, I'll submit them for a final detailed assessment, to see if they should be included in Enhanced (Phase III).

Feel free to throw out anything, but I will say that extremely radical changes, or needlessly complex changes with little return, will not likely be considered to go on to Phase II. Get your ideas up quickly because I'm wanting to get a firm ruleset out soon for the upcoming AAMC Enhanced tournament :)

[cousin_joe]

Let me start things off by just throwing this idea out there...

I'm wondering about allowing TRNs being able to leave a hostile SZ (eg. with enemy SUB), but still be able to conduct noncombat movement. This is how it was in out-of-the-box, but was changed in LHTR (transports moving in combat must be unloaded also during combat).

Okay, I know there's a whole lot more out there so go to it! :)

[Stephen]

I agree to the transports change.

Some of my concerns:

NAs - Germany
Panzerblitz has become very much a given in all the games I've played recently. Either it needs to be reduced a bit (max # per turn can PB, or max # per combat), or the other German NAs need to be strengthened (LDB is too easy to counter, 88s needs to be improved a bit)

NAs - Japan
Kaitens has to go. I haven't thought of something to replace it with yet, but Japan needs land units during the first few turns and buying subs doesn't mesh with that. The other NAs are fine.

Russia-Japan non-aggression
Bilateral non-aggression treaty is a good first step. Russo-Japanese conflict in China has to be addressed.

Counting free-inf NAs toward IC production
Restore true limits to IC production in Asia.

That's all on the top of my head for now, I'll post more if/when I think of them.

[axis_roll]

I agree to the transports change.
I agree as well.... a single sub should not have such a great affect on a transports capabilities, especially once the transports have left the subs realm of influence (i.e. gone to a new seazone)
Some of my concerns:

NAs - Germany
Panzerblitz has become very much a given in all the games I've played recently. Either it needs to be reduced a bit (max # per turn can PB, or max # per combat), or the other German NAs need to be strengthened (LDB is too easy to counter, 88s needs to be improved a bit)
I agree 100% with this as Panzerblitz (when used correctly) can turn Germany into a monster. The tank already is a very good buy at %5 with 3/3 capability.

Proposed solution would be 1 panzer blitz per turn (no matter how many tanks)

Not sure how to beef up 88s.
How about 2 non-combat movement capability? Doing that in combat would make them uber-powerful.

NAs - Japan
Kaitens has to go. I haven't thought of something to replace it with yet, but Japan needs land units during the first few turns and buying subs doesn't mesh with that. The other NAs are fine.
This only works if Japan can delay their (second) NA.

Russia-Japan non-aggression
Bilateral non-aggression treaty is a good first step. Russo-Japanese conflict in China has to be addressed.

Counting free-inf NAs toward IC production
Restore true limits to IC production in Asia.

It's the russians supporting US and UK that's the killer. I believe the modifications of free inf (Pac divisions and Commonwealth) to count against IC caps is a step in the right direction.

If not, I suggested Russian units get a (-1) modifier on defense when in non-red territories in Asia.

[Stephen]

Proposed solution would be 1 panzer blitz per turn (no matter how many tanks)
This weakens it substantially (consider the G2 Africa grab wouldn't work as well), but on the other hand Russia could spread out and not fear being PBed in each zone. I've also noticed in some of my games that I have so many tanks doing PB combined with fighters that I hardly know how best to distribute them.
I'm willing to support this.

Not sure how to beef up 88s.
How about 2 non-combat movement capability? Doing that in combat would make them uber-powerful.
This is exactly the change I have in mind and what I proposed in the past. I would consider 88s if they could move 2 in ncm.

It's the russians supporting US and UK that's the killer. I believe the modifications of free inf (Pac divisions and Commonwealth) to count against IC caps is a step in the right direction.

If not, I suggested Russian units get a (-1) modifier on defense when in non-red territories in Asia.
There are a host of possibilities but I don't know how "uncomplicated" they are. For instance, were Russia to lose 1 non-aggression treaty inf per turn that they have units defending non-red territories in Asia, this would give them something to think about.
The problem as I see it that AH was designed to permit, even encourage Russian help in Asia. The non-aggression treaty is meant to give each side some breathing space, but it just makes it easier for Russia to extend its defenses. I don't know if Russia needs to be forbidden from garrisoning Sinkiang and China, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Some possibilities (remember, we're brainstorming so no idea is too silly or stupid) :)

a) limit of one Russian unit per territory.

b) modify non-aggression treaty to penalize Russia for defending non-red Asia. For every Russian unit in a non-red Asian territory, Russia loses one free non-aggression infantry if attacked.

Russia can and should be able to pound Japanese inf that threaten Russian territories, but why should Russia be able to repel Japan from Sinkiang and retain "non-aggression" infantry? Therefore:

c) Russia loses all free non-aggression inf if any Russian unit attacks any Japenese unit.

d) (wacky alert... remember, brainstorming): Russia can garrison any territory. If Japan attacks, Russia has the option of staying in and defending, and sacrifices the free non-aggression inf. Or, Russia can choose to retreat one space to avoid combat, and retain their non-aggression inf.

[axis_roll]

There are a host of possibilities but I don't know how "uncomplicated" they are. For instance, were Russia to lose 1 non-aggression treaty inf per turn that they have units defending non-red territories in Asia, this would give them something to think about.
The problem as I see it that AH was designed to permit, even encourage Russian help in Asia. The non-aggression treaty is meant to give each side some breathing space, but it just makes it easier for Russia to extend its defenses. I don't know if Russia needs to be forbidden from garrisoning Sinkiang and China, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Some possibilities (remember, we're brainstorming so no idea is too silly or stupid) :)

a) limit of one Russian unit per territory.

b) modify non-aggression treaty to penalize Russia for defending non-red Asia. For every Russian unit in a non-red Asian territory, Russia loses one free non-aggression infantry if attacked.

Russia can and should be able to pound Japanese inf that threaten Russian territories, but why should Russia be able to repel Japan from Sinkiang and retain "non-aggression" infantry? Therefore:

c) Russia loses all free non-aggression inf if any Russian unit attacks any Japenese unit.

d) (wacky alert... remember, brainstorming): Russia can garrison any territory. If Japan attacks, Russia has the option of staying in and defending, and sacrifices the free non-aggression inf. Or, Russia can choose to retreat one space to avoid combat, and retain their non-aggression inf.
All are good ideas. Some obviously more complicated to implement. I like to lean toward simplicity:

c). Russia loses all free non-aggression inf if any Russian unit attacks any Japanese unit.

If that's too extreme, I like this one:

Russia loses 1 non-aggression treaty inf per turn that they have units defending non-red territories in Asia.

Again, simple and effective. Plus it's realistic. Tensions are mounting because Russia is getting involved in military action inthe asian theatre of war. with each round, hostilities are imminent...

[Stephen]

How's this for a new Japanese NA:

Fortified Transports
Japanese transports now defend at 2.

[DocD]

I would definitely be for limiting INF-ONLY NAs as Stephen has proposed. Just makes sense.
Also 88's could use a boost. I like the idea of 2 spc NCM idea.

Kaitens are too much like Kamis, just the weaker version. I would be for replacing it with something that helps Japan but I'm at a lost as to what right now.

I think TExp got weaken too much.

Non-aggression is great right now but I like roll's idea of taking away one inf per turn if Russia wants to garrison Asia. This would help Japan a little.

PB....can't say I'm for limiting it. Germany needs every edge against the Russian Bear.

[cousin_joe]

The Transport change will make it to Phase II

Delayed NA's - I would be interested in allowing a Delayed 2nd NA only, with one caveat - When the NA is eventually declared, it comes into effect at the end of the turn, rather than immediately. There would be no further penalties (in terms of IPC), but it would definitely take out the surprise factor which is my biggest concern here.

Russian-Japan Nonagression - The option for Russians to support the Western Allies in SE Asia needs to remain viable, but with the changes in 2.1, this option comes at considerable risk vs. an agressive Germany. Further changes to the current rules drives up the complexity considerably with very little gain, as well as reduces the Russian Support option, and subsequently even the UK/US SE Asian IC option.

I see this situation as analogous to the Western Allies in Karelia - sure it didn't happen, and makes things tougher for Germany, but to disallow this would make the Eastern Front a cakewalk for Germany. Similarly, to severely limit Russia in SE Asia, would make SE Asia a cakewalk for the Japanese. Again, the Axis can handle this so called Orange Crush with more German pressure on Russia, hurting the allies in the Atlantic, or sending the Germans via Africa.

From a Strategic Balance perspective, I am not convinced the Axis (as a whole) need any further help. If you want to argue a Historical Accuracy perspective, like I said before, Strategic Options trump Historical Accuracy (otherwise, we should look at no Western Allies in Karelia as well - which I am not interested in doing as this is not a Historical Simulation)

Lend Lease - I am unsure if this needs a boost or not. Feedback anyone? I would look at increasing the limit to 12IPC (vs. 10)

Panzerblitz could use a slight reduction. I'm thinking max 3 battles/TURN. This is simply a check from making it uber-powerful. This may not be needed though with the upcoming changes to the other NAs :)

I feel Ger LDB is fine. It's a good dead zone trader and SZ threat.

For Ger 88's, a 2 space move on NCM would be way overpowered. I agree they need a slight boost as players can wait long to get their return. Right now, I'm thinking a free RTL placement on G1, possibly on any grey territory.

Afrika Corps - I am looking at a 2INF,1RTL,1ARM placement (ie. 1 extra INF). This will be a 15IPC benefit, much like Colonial Garrison.

Atlantic Wall - this one needs a small to medium sized boost and I'm looking for something to counter a Combined Bombardment strategy by the Allies. I'm thinking something along the lines of a Coastal Artillery addition to Atlantic Wall but haven't quite figured out the best way to implement it yet. :)

Limited INF NAs- Again here, UK/US SE Asian ICs need to remain viable, otherwise they don't get purchased. Western Allied support of these IC's comes at risk, particularly to an agressive Germany. Furthermore, potential ICs in Aus, Egy, and SAfr become much less viable with a measly 2 unit limit.

Royal Navy - I am looking at a slight boost here as well, likely making destroyers only cost 9 IPC for the UK

For Kaitens, I'm thinking of reducing the Japanese SUB cost to 7 (SUBs cheaply made). Japan can have a strong sub-based Navy, but will have extra income to support the land campaign.

Banzais - I would consider a very small boost to this, like possibly 1 free INF placement to anywhere in SE Asia

Marines - Again, a small boost, possibly 1 free INF placement to anywhere on the continental US

[Vollick1979]

If the rules have to be submitted in a week then these last-minute changes are not likely to be an improvement to the current rules. If your goal is to get Enhanced accepted by tournament players is having different unit costs for different nations the way to go? I do however like the idea of adding an infantry into some of the NA's to equalize them out.

I'm not going to comment on all the suggestions you have put up but even at 7 IPC's subs are not going to be purchased enough to make taking Kaitens desireable.

Now with the risk of appearing foolish I would remove Kaitens as an NA, as I have never seen or heard of them being taken in a game. Replace it with a Manchurian IC and AA gun (the IC and AA gun must go in Manchuria) I feel that while the IPC cost (17) is more than Colonial Garrison's (15), the fact it must go in Manchuria evens it out.

The once-and-done D-Day deal is frankly not a good idea. If I understand correctly it was put in place to help Germany put more pressure on Russia to prevent Russia from helping the Western Allies against Japan. Does this seem to anyone else as a round-about way of solving the problem? Give Japan a Manchurian Complex NA, perhaps a 1 inf/turn NA, and perhaps Kamikazis (at normal attack) standard, and remove the silly once-and-done D-Day rule.

And Radar and Royal Navy also need to be dealt with but that's just because they are so much weaker than Commonwealth and Colonial Garrison.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

i agree with vollick that kaitens is an na that does not get picked. i would like to see it boosted or replaced with something on par with the rest of japans nas.

i do not like giving japan a free inf na or ic. i think this takes away from the fun of trying to weigh up the benefits of investing in a land or naval campaign.

i like joes recomendation of beefing up royal navy by reducing the cost of destroyers.

radar needs to be made stronger. giving a free aagun to any tan territory would help but still not make it as strong as uks other nas.

[pagan]

Pagan's comments:

Transports.... Out-of-Box rules

Non-Agression pact for russia : any ATTACK against japanese forces voids the pact , the -1 turn counting sounds cool , but could become tedious to keep track of

Panzerblitz : was always a monster. even in 2.0 , i just never said anything , it really does need to drop down in power. With my usage of panzerblitz, 3 times per turn in use is just like no change at all. It needs to be less than that

atlantic wall..... a boost would be nice:
--ANY defending unit increases it defense by 1 on the first round.
--All land unit ATTackers do not get to fire for the first round.

Afrika Corps.... 2inf,1art,1arm ... this is the Maximum in my opinion.

LDB --- remove the defending aircraft restriction, or make it 1 for 1

banzai & marines: nice changes proposed by CJ

ipc territory production limit needs to include NAs... i play this way f2f and it is a HUGE difference with regards to curtailing Japan from build up purposes, but I still think it needs to be enforced.

Radar.... remove it as an NA, and make it come into effect in at the begining of round 6

royal navy.... i put some thought on this previously but cant really get myself to take it.... DD+TN makes it a nice grab _OR_ placement in a seazone allows Uk to purchase and place other sea units in the same sz for the rest of the game. IE he places it in eastern canada.. there is no IC there, but Uk can from now on purhcase and place sez units in that sea zone as if there was an IC.

88's --- these things are the quiet winners for germany next to Panzer blitz. But the two NAs are poor partners together. germany needs ART for this thing.... how about germany can cash in any number of units they have on the board (planes, ships,...whatever) and use that money for ART purchases. This money could not be used in conjunction with the current cash, and could onlyt be used on ART. Placement happens at the end of the round. The process of re-tooling the military does/could cause a round delay of aggression on germany as a downside.

Make all japanese Islands with zero IPc value a 1 IPC value.... usa goes pacific is good for usa + japan building navy is good for allied asia + an increase of 3 ipcs for japan ... there's lots of bonuses here

subs only seazones .... they can strafe units moving through but not block sea zones

[cousin_joe]

i agree with vollick that kaitens is an na that does not get picked. i would like to see it boosted or replaced with something on par with the rest of japans nas.

i do not like giving japan a free inf na or ic. i think this takes away from the fun of trying to weigh up the benefits of investing in a land or naval campaign.

i like joes recomendation of beefing up royal navy by reducing the cost of destroyers.

radar needs to be made stronger. giving a free aagun to any tan territory would help but still not make it as strong as uks other nas.

If the 1IPC discount is not enough, one can always suggest a free Kaiten Torpedo with the NA instead. Since you know you're planning on throwing away Kaitens, you may as well start off with one extra. Now would that get Kaitens picked??? :)

Completely agree with you here Love on why free-INF NA or Free IC is a bad NA for Japan. Japan's leaders were always divided between Army and Navy and this strategic dilemna should remain. Furthermore, Japan's Army-NA, Banzais, should likely be beefed up with a free INF placement.

I'm not so sure if the Radar NA needs to be beefed up. It is a powerful NA when you think about it - it basically makes any Air Attack on a UK territory EXTREMELY risky. It might not be your first choice, but if Germany buys extra TRNs on G1, or Japan goes Jet Power or Banzais (or even both), it becomes a whole lot more valuable. I'll keep it in mind for Phase II though to see what the general consensus is. :)

[cousin_joe]

The once-and-done D-Day deal is frankly not a good idea. If I understand correctly it was put in place to help Germany put more pressure on Russia to prevent Russia from helping the Western Allies against Japan. Does this seem to anyone else as a round-about way of solving the problem?


This is in the early game Vollick. Germany has a little more leeway in pressuring Russia early on, but it is generally agreed that they should look at stacking WEur eventually, as trading WEur has many bad consequences for Germany (previously discussed).

Great strategy games are about choices, and this is a real tough one for the Western Allies.

[pagan]

I would take Kaitan torpedos with a +2 subs

remember that these are japanese, and don't sit off the coast of Uk, nor do they transport any troops around. Their whole life is based on killing stuff or possibly sitting off of India for a 3IPC convoy hit.

but for the Banzai.... oh man.... I like that one with the free INF !!!

Now i have to start thinking what I do with Japan all over again....DAMN YOU CJ !

[cousin_joe]

Pagan's comments:

Transports.... Out-of-Box rules

Non-Agression pact for russia : any ATTACK against japanese forces voids the pact , the -1 turn counting sounds cool , but could become tedious to keep track of

Panzerblitz : was always a monster. even in 2.0 , i just never said anything , it really does need to drop down in power. With my usage of panzerblitz, 3 times per turn in use is just like no change at all. It needs to be less than that

atlantic wall..... a boost would be nice:
--ANY defending unit increases it defense by 1 on the first round.
--All land unit ATTackers do not get to fire for the first round.

Afrika Corps.... 2inf,1art,1arm ... this is the Maximum in my opinion.

LDB --- remove the defending aircraft restriction, or make it 1 for 1

banzai & marines: nice changes proposed by CJ

ipc territory production limit needs to include NAs... i play this way f2f and it is a HUGE difference with regards to curtailing Japan from build up purposes, but I still think it needs to be enforced.

Radar.... remove it as an NA, and make it come into effect in at the begining of round 6

royal navy.... i put some thought on this previously but cant really get myself to take it.... DD+TN makes it a nice grab _OR_ placement in a seazone allows Uk to purchase and place other sea units in the same sz for the rest of the game. IE he places it in eastern canada.. there is no IC there, but Uk can from now on purhcase and place sez units in that sea zone as if there was an IC.

88's --- these things are the quiet winners for germany next to Panzer blitz. But the two NAs are poor partners together. germany needs ART for this thing.... how about germany can cash in any number of units they have on the board (planes, ships,...whatever) and use that money for ART purchases. This money could not be used in conjunction with the current cash, and could onlyt be used on ART. Placement happens at the end of the round. The process of re-tooling the military does/could cause a round delay of aggression on germany as a downside.

Make all japanese Islands with zero IPc value a 1 IPC value.... usa goes pacific is good for usa + japan building navy is good for allied asia + an increase of 3 ipcs for japan ... there's lots of bonuses here

subs only seazones .... they can strafe units moving through but not block sea zones

For Nonagression, how about this:
attacking the opposing side's land territory means 4 free INF for defender
attacking the opposing side's units, means the treaty is void (no side gets free INF)

For Panzerblitz, 1 is too weak, 3 is still too strong, so how about limit of 2 attacks per TURN (consistent with Kamis and Kaitens)

For AtlanticWall, I am looking at a specific counter for Combined Bombardment. I am looking at the following:

For any amphibious assault against a grey territory, INF defend at 3 for the first round of combat. In addition, the defender gets a single Anti-Ship shot at 1 that if successful, will kill a bombarding DD or Amphibing TRN. This would represent the Coastal Batteries that were part of the Atlantic Wall. This would occur during the Opening fire phase, so the DD would get it's shot as well, but the TRN would be killed immediately (OOL is up to Attacker, who I would assume would lose a DD first before a loaded TRN). BBs do not apply, as there Bombardment would be considered out of the range. From a Strategy perspective, it provides a bit of a counter/deterrent to the Combined Arms Tech. I am wondering about limiting the Anti-Ship shot to territories with at least 1 RTL in them (but not requiring that the RTL itself actually fire and lose it's roll in the ground combat - I can also look at limiting it to territories with an AAGun instead of an RTL)

For German 88's, the free RTL can be placed in any grey territory. You are very correct that this is a strong NA, but it takes a while to see it's effects. This should give more of an instant benefit to it.

LDB as is should be roughly on par with the weakened Panzerblitz.

Kaitens - How about a free SUB AND a 1IPC discount?? :D

[pagan]

Non agression: I have laid out my views on this awhile back. I don't think your idea of atttacked units as a good one ...I do think of Owned territories as a breach of the pact though. If USSR attacks a japanese OWNED territory then it breaches the pact. This keeps russia on the defensive end and in occupying territories owned by the other powers does not tkae the aggressiveness aways for japan.

Japan has 3 basic things:
1. Protect mainland IPCs (LAND)
2. Try to take either Sinkiang or India (LAND + SEA + LAND)
3. Build a Navy (SEA)

--now the allies affect this drastically
a. (cj vs pagan game) Uk+US went pacific strong ... so japan had to go with more navy to keep pace or lose the ocean forever
b. double ICs + NAs by allies... japan needs and IC and tranys to 'Defend' mainland territories
c. Allies go with a modified KGF start --- then japan gets to implement all 3 basic tenents with little resistance

----> nothing here really makes me want to ever get any Kaitan torpedoes that Die immediately. I would NOT take kaitian torpedoes with a +1 sub. I would take Kaitan torpedoes only sometimes with a +2 subs.... now that means I think that subs for japan are usually bad buys, and using those little bought things as suicides is a Real Bad decision


As for the German 88s___if you are refering to my method of redeployment of german military forces, I initially thought of limiting it in scale to 40IPCs max fromteh board (due to the cost of 10ART) , but then I thought that the idea of taking som many things off the board and truing them into ART on the place units phase is a serious hinderenace on germany and the cost is directly correlated with the hinderance. So I think it would be self limiting. ___but placment would have to consist of territory limits + you had to own the territory at the begining of your turn , and you don't want to be able to drop the entire germany military force on W.Russia _ excess funds cannot be greater than 3IPCs (less than the cost of an ART) _ and those funds are combined with the cash in the collect income phase

----> Ok I see you are talking about a one-time free ART with the NA. The NA is good its just hard to buy only ART and keep telling myself that this is going to work...

[DocD]

For Nonagression, how about this:
attacking the opposing side's land territory means 4 free INF for defender
attacking the opposing side's units, means the treaty is void (no side gets free INF)
I don't see the benefit here. If Japan takes India and Russia attacks, the treaty is void, so now Russia can attack Manchuria for free?? That's crazy thinking and hardly the way the treaty should work. I think Russia should lose its free inf if it attacks Japanese units for sure.

For Panzerblitz, 1 is too weak, 3 is still too strong, so how about limit of 2 attacks per TURN (consistent with Kamis and Kaitens)
sounds good

For AtlanticWall, I am looking at a specific counter for Combined Bombardment. I am looking at the following:

For any amphibious assault against a grey territory, INF defend at 3 for the first round of combat. In addition, the defender gets a single Anti-Ship shot at 1 that if successful, will kill a bombarding DD or Amphibing TRN. This would represent the Coastal Batteries that were part of the Atlantic Wall. This would occur during the Opening fire phase, so the DD would get it's shot as well, but the TRN would be killed immediately (OOL is up to Attacker, who I would assume would lose a DD first before a loaded TRN). BBs do not apply, as there Bombardment would be considered out of the range. From a Strategy perspective, it provides a bit of a counter/deterrent to the Combined Arms Tech. I am wondering about limiting the Anti-Ship shot to territories with at least 1 RTL in them (but not requiring that the RTL itself actually fire and lose it's roll in the ground combat - I can also look at limiting it to territories with an AAGun instead of an RTL)I could buy that. Still don't think I would ever choose this NA regardless, but that's me.

For German 88's, the free RTL can be placed in any grey territory. You are very correct that this is a strong NA, but it takes a while to see it's effects. This should give more of an instant benefit to it. That's getting there....how about 2 free RTL.

LDB as is should be roughly on par with the weakened Panzerblitz.I agree.

Kaitens - How about a free SUB AND a 1IPC discount?? :DOK, this would be nice. I still would like to see a Japanese NA related strictly to the mainland. A free IC would be good....but something that Japan can use to help it on the mainland. Right now Japan has too many NA's that relate only to its navy.

[cousin_joe]

Non agression: I have laid out my views on this awhile back. I don't think your idea of atttacked units as a good one ...I do think of Owned territories as a breach of the pact though. If USSR attacks a japanese OWNED territory then it breaches the pact. This keeps russia on the defensive end and in occupying territories owned by the other powers does not tkae the aggressiveness aways for japan.


I see what you're saying here Pagan, and I can go for that.

-attacking the opposing side's controlled territories (eg. Russian troops attacking Japanese-controlled China) would mean you breach the pact and give up your access to free INF. However, the defender only gets the free INF if attacked in one of his original territories.

-I would be willing to incorporate this rule, but not in conjunction with the limited INF NAs rule.


----> nothing here really makes me want to ever get any Kaitan torpedoes that Die immediately. I would NOT take kaitian torpedoes with a +1 sub. I would take Kaitan torpedoes only sometimes with a +2 subs.... now that means I think that subs for japan are usually bad buys, and using those little bought things as suicides is a Real Bad decision


All-out Land - Banzai
Sea + Land - Kamis, Yamatos, Tokyo Express, JP, LRA, CA
All-out Sea - Kaitens, SS

I can think of a few situations where an All-out Sea approach would be useful. Particularly if the Allies go Heavy Pacific Fleet, OR if they go No Pacific Fleet. Heavy Pacific Fleet is obvious as the SUBs would give you a HUGE attack advantage. No Pacific Fleet would mean 1 original SUB + 1 free SUB, plus 3 additional SUBs for a mere 21 IPC and you'd be in good position to take 10IPC/Round from the US by Convoy Raiding the West Coast. The ability to take Kaitens as a Delayed NA adds to it's overall value in terms of forcing the US to redirect it's efforts if intially ignoring the Pacific.

Like Radar, this is more of a situational NA which is a nice option if the Allies are showing you a particular strategy :)

----> Ok I see you are talking about a one-time free ART with the NA. The NA is good its just hard to buy only ART and keep telling myself that this is going to work...

The redeployment is too much Pagan. It's a good NA but I find the big problem with these "long-term" NAs (like Marines and Banzais as well) is not enough of an upfront benefit early on, thus the free RTL. As to exact placement, I'm debating whether it must be Ger/SEur, or any German territory.

[pagan]

A single free ART taken in either round 1 or 2 with the NA won't cause fuss too much as long as it's placed on any german owned territory.

Biggest placement of it would be incorporated onto AES or Iraq in the event that they own it still on a G2 NA selection.

It only has a single movement and it should be used immediately. The 88 NA value increases the more the ART are attacking AND defending.

the ART NA means that germany has to build and then move the ART (1 move per round --which is fine). this makes it a slow venture and being able to drop that (1-2?) ART in farther areas on the map would be ok to me.

....which comes to mind here....How about rather than a free ART, germany gets to place a single ART THAT IT PURCHASED in any of its GRAY territories during the mobilize units phase, if it owned it at the begining of the round ????
__wouldn't that be a good step for increasing the power of the 88s NA ?
--> edit here: i am talking about a constant thing here, not a 1 time shot

[AxisRoll]

This is my opinions. Take what you like. I hope I add variety and an upgrade or 2.

General
1. Transport rule is good. do it.

2. Don't limit production, you are taking away for the game
3. For Banzais and Marines LDB, 88's, Make the +1 attack for 1st 2 rds of each battle. Not just 1st rd.
4. In general, I like to take aggressive N/A's to gain an advantage. So the defensive ones to me a weaker. Do you go into a game defensive minded?
Russia
Solid N/A's
1. Russian winter is a once in a game thing, which I tend to dislike, but i see a time where it can be used. But in Rd1 are you really going to take it??? I doubt it, I want a cooler more aggression one.
2. I like this best. Russia loses all free non-aggression inf if any Russian unit attacks any Japenese unit. Other ideas are far more complicated.

Germany
1. Panzerblitz is a standard, but I would rather boost others to make them more apealing. (More options)
2. I like 88's do 2 non combat. I dont think that is so overpowering. Its $1 less than tank. and doesnt have power either.
3. For Africa Corp, I would break it into a 2 turn drop. Rd 1 1I 1R 1T Rd 2 1I & 1R
4. I like this - atlantic wall..... a boost would be nice: ANY defending unit increases it defense by 1 on the first round. CJ's Atlantic Wall idea is 2 complex.
5. Wolfpacks can use a bump. What if you make super subs cheaper to achive? $8 to lock it in?

UK
1. royal navy. If you place DD is SZ with complex or one being dropped there this rd, then you can drop boats there in future and it does not count against the production cap. Or add a second DD on (2nd Or 3rd rd)
2. Radar is only defensive. I dont see it. Not compared to others. How often is UK AA gun in play. And again, In rd1, how often are you thinking so defensive minded.

Japan
I would like to see a change for JAps
1. Katiens and Kami's. Again, In the first rd, how often are you thinking defensive minded.
2. Katiens need help. Don't make them die. They still shoot only in rd1, Pieces that die are a waste, except for 1 big battle or very important one and that is once / gameish.
3. Japs need a 1inf / turn NA to keep with UK / USA. Period!
4. This can be ok. Fortified Transports = Japanese transports now defend at 2.

5. Quoting history on no 1inf / turn NA? We are about balancing the game and Japs are 2 weak.
6. What about *** navy where they get boat for -$1
7. Yamamoto Battleships are weak 2. I don't know what it needs, but something. it does 2 off shores, 2nd shot hits at (2 or 3)
8. Naval Advantage should be all 4 rolls free. (12 to 16). In line with others. Making 15 the ave return on N/A.
USA
Solid N/A's
1. Hopefully bump marines to attack at 2 for 2 rds. Oh yeah, change special Forces to Marines.

Again, these are my thoughts on making a great game better!

[AxisRoll]

for 88's,
I would only do 1 of the following
1. make non combat 2 moves
2. give 2 free ones, 1 rd1 1 rd2 from germany.
3. attack 2 rds at 2.
4.

[cousin_joe]

A single free ART taken in either round 1 or 2 with the NA won't cause fuss too much as long as it's placed on any german owned territory.

Biggest placement of it would be incorporated onto AES or Iraq in the event that they own it still on a G2 NA selection.

It only has a single movement and it should be used immediately. The 88 NA value increases the more the ART are attacking AND defending.

the ART NA means that germany has to build and then move the ART (1 move per round --which is fine). this makes it a slow venture and being able to drop that (1-2?) ART in farther areas on the map would be ok to me.

....which comes to mind here....How about rather than a free ART, germany gets to place a single ART THAT IT PURCHASED in any of its GRAY territories during the mobilize units phase, if it owned it at the begining of the round ????
__wouldn't that be a good step for increasing the power of the 88s NA ?
--> edit here: i am talking about a constant thing here, not a 1 time shot

It's a good NA, esp. in comparison to a toned down Panzerblitz. There is a HUGE increase to your attack and defense power + there is the potential to advance your position without taking casualties from picket defenses.

I would like to confine the free RTL deployment to a gray territory, rather than just any German owned territory (what would be the rationale for it applying out of the blue in some German occupied territory??)

[pagan]

This is my opinions. Take what you like. I hope I add variety and an upgrade or 2.

General
1. Transport rule is good. do it.

2. Don't limit production, you are taking away for the game
3. For Banzais and Marines LDB, 88's, Make the +1 attack for 1st 2 rds of each battle. Not just 1st rd.
4. In general, I like to take aggressive N/A's to gain an advantage. So the defensive ones to me a weaker. Do you go into a game defensive minded?
Russia
Solid N/A's
1. Russian winter is a once in a game thing, which I tend to dislike, but i see a time where it can be used. But in Rd1 are you really going to take it??? I doubt it, I want a cooler more aggression one.
2. I like this best. Russia loses all free non-aggression inf if any Russian unit attacks any Japenese unit. Other ideas are far more complicated.

-tranys yes, but would it be a good change for LHTR too? if so then do it.
-production limit? i think its the NAs being included in production limit. I do know that there is a LARGE difference with the asia ICs+NAs against japan when the terr-ipc ic limit includes the NAs. Its from one extreme to the other
-i like the idea of russian winter not being an NA. I like the idea of the historical versions used for AdvAAE where a die is rolled at the begining of every USSR turn, a roll of 1 on a d6 means that red territories (or specific territories) are restricted from movement in or out. Nice and simple and i like the variation and the unknown.
- simple rule structure like is listed for non-aggression pact is very nice.

Germany
1. Panzerblitz is a standard, but I would rather boost others to make them more apealing. (More options)
2. I like 88's do 2 non combat. I dont think that is so overpowering. Its $1 less than tank. and doesnt have power either.
3. For Africa Corp, I would break it into a 2 turn drop. Rd 1 1I 1R 1T Rd 2 1I & 1R
4. I like this - atlantic wall..... a boost would be nice: ANY defending unit increases it defense by 1 on the first round. CJ's Atlantic Wall idea is 2 complex.
5. Wolfpacks can use a bump. What if you make super subs cheaper to achive? $8 to lock it in?

-panzerblitz has always been the game breaker. i should have stood up earlier on this to get people to maybe check it out a bit ore critical.
-german subs are good as they are, and almost too good.

UK
1. royal navy. If you place DD is SZ with complex or one being dropped there this rd, then you can drop boats there in future and it does not count against the production cap. Or add a second DD on (2nd Or 3rd rd)
2. Radar is only defensive. I dont see it. Not compared to others. How often is UK AA gun in play. And again, In rd1, how often are you thinking so defensive minded.

-Royal Navy ...2 DDs is alot, I like DD+TN however I do think the IPC terr IC limit should include all NAs. I also like the idea that this NA could allow UK to build sea units in the same sz they get dropped without the need for an IC. but the drop zones could not include AES.
-Radar....as an NA its tough for me to take, sicne I am usially dealign with AK, LDB, & PB from germany.

Japan
I would like to see a change for JAps
1. Katiens and Kami's. Again, In the first rd, how often are you thinking defensive minded.
2. Katiens need help. Don't make them die. They still shoot only in rd1, Pieces that die are a waste, except for 1 big battle or very important one and that is once / gameish.
3. Japs need a 1inf / turn NA to keep with UK / USA. Period!
4. This can be ok. Fortified Transports = Japanese transports now defend at 2.

5. Quoting history on no 1inf / turn NA? We are about balancing the game and Japs are 2 weak.
6. What about *** navy where they get boat for -$1
7. Yamamoto Battleships are weak 2. I don't know what it needs, but something. it does 2 off shores, 2nd shot hits at (2 or 3)
8. Naval Advantage should be all 4 rolls free. (12 to 16). In line with others. Making 15 the ave return on N/A.
USA
Solid N/A's
1. Hopefully bump marines to attack at 2 for 2 rds. Oh yeah, change special Forces to Marines.

-kaitans only dying if they hit...? Not a bad idea at all!
-i like the possible banzai change by Cj, it resticted in placement but maybe it could be offerend for the phillipines VC?
-Yammatoo BBs are good. They don't need to be changed. If you take this NA I suggest buying a third BB, otherwise don't take it.
-4 free rolls for japan minro tech? ok why not. could save them 4ipcs on early purchase
-im going to have to be silent on US NAs... I just don't have the grasp on them I would like in order to speak about them.

[cousin_joe]

This is my opinions. Take what you like. I hope I add variety and an upgrade or 2.

General
1. Transport rule is good. do it.

2. Don't limit production, you are taking away for the game
3. For Banzais and Marines LDB, 88's, Make the +1 attack for 1st 2 rds of each battle. Not just 1st rd.
4. In general, I like to take aggressive N/A's to gain an advantage. So the defensive ones to me a weaker. Do you go into a game defensive minded?


Agreed on 1,2,4. Sometimes a Defensive NA is the best response if facing a ton of pressure. I would prefer to see other changes ahead of 2 round advantages.

Russia
Solid N/A's
1. Russian winter is a once in a game thing, which I tend to dislike, but i see a time where it can be used. But in Rd1 are you really going to take it??? I doubt it, I want a cooler more aggression one.
2. I like this best. Russia loses all free non-aggression inf if any Russian unit attacks any Japenese unit. Other ideas are far more complicated.


1. I take Russian Winter R1. That 1 round advantage can change the entire course of the game.
2. I agree

Germany
1. Panzerblitz is a standard, but I would rather boost others to make them more apealing. (More options)
2. I like 88's do 2 non combat. I dont think that is so overpowering. Its $1 less than tank. and doesnt have power either.
3. For Africa Corp, I would break it into a 2 turn drop. Rd 1 1I 1R 1T Rd 2 1I & 1R
4. I like this - atlantic wall..... a boost would be nice: ANY defending unit increases it defense by 1 on the first round. CJ's Atlantic Wall idea is 2 complex.
5. Wolfpacks can use a bump. What if you make super subs cheaper to achive? $8 to lock it in?


1. Panzerblitz will likely get a slight nerf with max 2 attacks/TURN
2. I'm surprised people keep suggesting the move 2 on NCM of Ger 88's. I can buy 10RTL G1, then NCM them into Karelia on G2. This is EXTREMELY broken. It's a good NA as is and only needs a little boost to get it into play quicker, and thuswise a free RTL placement.
3. One step
4. There needs to be a counter to a Western Allied Combined Arms. I feel sorry for axis_roll in our game where I have the 6 DDs Comb-Bombing Germany with him being unable to do absolutely anything about it. I don't see what's so complex about a 1 @ 1 shot of killing Amphibing DDs or TRNs as long as one defending unit is present.
5. Wolfpacks got a boost last time and have significant attacking and raiding advantages.


UK
1. royal navy. If you place DD is SZ with complex or one being dropped there this rd, then you can drop boats there in future and it does not count against the production cap. Or add a second DD on (2nd Or 3rd rd)
2. Radar is only defensive. I dont see it. Not compared to others. How often is UK AA gun in play. And again, In rd1, how often are you thinking so defensive minded.


1. seems a bit much
2. I've seriously thought about radar a couple of times. Consider Japan with Jet Power + Banzais. With that said, I am keeping the suggestion of a free AA placement in consideration. This might go good with an Aus factory build.

Japan
I would like to see a change for JAps
1. Katiens and Kami's. Again, In the first rd, how often are you thinking defensive minded.
2. Katiens need help. Don't make them die. They still shoot only in rd1, Pieces that die are a waste, except for 1 big battle or very important one and that is once / gameish.
3. Japs need a 1inf / turn NA to keep with UK / USA. Period!
4. This can be ok. Fortified Transports = Japanese transports now defend at 2.

5. Quoting history on no 1inf / turn NA? We are about balancing the game and Japs are 2 weak.
6. What about *** navy where they get boat for -$1
7. Yamamoto Battleships are weak 2. I don't know what it needs, but something. it does 2 off shores, 2nd shot hits at (2 or 3)
8. Naval Advantage should be all 4 rolls free. (12 to 16). In line with others. Making 15 the ave return on N/A.


1,2. Just the threat of being used adds to the Kaitens/Kamis power.
3,5. Japan can equalize through increased kills, vis-a-vis Banzai strafes or DD/BB Bombardments.
7. BBs are good, but as Pagan says, you need to buy at least one extra.
8. I will consider this

USA
Solid N/A's
1. Hopefully bump marines to attack at 2 for 2 rds. Oh yeah, change special Forces to Marines.


Marines is a long-term NA, but the free INf placement should give it a bit more up-front value

[Vollick1979]

I don't thinking nerfing PB is the way to go here. If you take a strong NA and weaken it and then you take a weak NA and strengthen it, you're altering two NA's when really only the weaker one needs to be changed.

For the case with PB yes it is strong but like others have stated before 88's are very nice to have firing in opening rounds. I think if PB gets nerfed and 88's get strengthened then everyone will be taking 88's.

The title of this thread is Last Minute Rule Changes to Enhanced 2.1. Well I think a lot of these proposed rule changes are quite substancial and shouldn't be added in haste.

I would suggest only substancial changes to Japanese NA's and perhaps slight tinkering with a couple other NA's:

1. Radar: I like the part about getting an AA gun with the NA.
2. Royal Navy: How bout something like 14 IPC's to spend on Naval Units. A slight increase but nothing too severe.
3. German 88's: With placing a free ART in Germany (it's a long term NA)
4. Naval Advantage: up to 16 IPC's.
5. Removing Kaitens (but barring that) the addition of another sub. The idea of not losing the Kaiten if you miss is a bad one as it drastically makes Kaitens too powerful.

[pagan]

But vollick, I believe Kaitans can only be used as 2 subs per TURN. So if they miss you don't get to try it again in the same conflict, and they must be stated before the first die gets tossed in combat, either defensively or offensively

Missing Kaitans not dying does not make this NA super powerful, in my opinion.

I am also taking into account the very limited use of subs for Japan.

[DocD]

I don't thinking nerfing PB is the way to go here. If you take a strong NA and weaken it and then you take a weak NA and strengthen it, you're altering two NA's when really only the weaker one needs to be changed.

For the case with PB yes it is strong but like others have stated before 88's are very nice to have firing in opening rounds. I think if PB gets nerfed and 88's get strengthened then everyone will be taking 88's.

The title of this thread is Last Minute Rule Changes to Enhanced 2.1. Well I think a lot of these proposed rule changes are quite substancial and shouldn't be added in haste.

I would suggest only substancial changes to Japanese NA's and perhaps slight tinkering with a couple other NA's:

1. Radar: I like the part about getting an AA gun with the NA.
2. Royal Navy: How bout something like 14 IPC's to spend on Naval Units. A slight increase but nothing too severe.
3. German 88's: With placing a free ART in Germany (it's a long term NA)
4. Naval Advantage: up to 16 IPC's.
5. Removing Kaitens (but barring that) the addition of another sub. The idea of not losing the Kaiten if you miss is a bad one as it drastically makes Kaitens too powerful.
I agree with everything Vollick says here. (And not just because we are a tag-team!!)
Not having to lose a kaiten almost makes it into like a BB or something.

[cousin_joe]

I don't thinking nerfing PB is the way to go here. If you take a strong NA and weaken it and then you take a weak NA and strengthen it, you're altering two NA's when really only the weaker one needs to be changed.

For the case with PB yes it is strong but like others have stated before 88's are very nice to have firing in opening rounds. I think if PB gets nerfed and 88's get strengthened then everyone will be taking 88's.

The title of this thread is Last Minute Rule Changes to Enhanced 2.1. Well I think a lot of these proposed rule changes are quite substancial and shouldn't be added in haste.

I would suggest only substancial changes to Japanese NA's and perhaps slight tinkering with a couple other NA's:

1. Radar: I like the part about getting an AA gun with the NA.
2. Royal Navy: How bout something like 14 IPC's to spend on Naval Units. A slight increase but nothing too severe.
3. German 88's: With placing a free ART in Germany (it's a long term NA)
4. Naval Advantage: up to 16 IPC's.
5. Removing Kaitens (but barring that) the addition of another sub. The idea of not losing the Kaiten if you miss is a bad one as it drastically makes Kaitens too powerful.

To be honest Vollick, I'm not a big fan of the Panzerblitz nerf to max 2 battles either. We'll see how it fares in Phase 2, but I'd rather leave as is, especially with upgrades to 88's, Atlantic Wall, and Afrika Corps.

The majority of changes so far are small balance changes, typically to underused NAs. The workhorse NAs are changing very little and again, the bid will ultimately take care of balance.

1. We'll see, I'll put it up for Phase II.
2. Not a big fan of this. Kills a German SUB offensive too quickly. I'd rather bundle it as a short term benefit with a long-term benefit rather than all up front.
3. Again, debatable whether it be Ger/SEur vs. anywhere
4. We'll see. I'm leaning towarsd it though.
5. I agree with you about not losing the Kaiten. Too much for MUCH! :) (An insider reference for Canadians)

[Vollick1979]

In regards to my suggestion for the Royal Navy. Currently with Royal Navy the UK gets a 10 IPC unit up front and i'm pretty sure it's not being selected and I think the reason is because often both an IC and a DD are in the plans for the UK.

So why take Royal Navy (10 IPC's) and build an IC (12 IPC's)? Sure you can place the DD anywhere but most of the time it's going to be around the UK. So it's just not a smart decision. Now even if you don't want to give the 14 IPC's for Royal Navy, why not let the UK player decide on how he's going to spend those 10 IPC's! Isn't Enhanced suppossed to be about giving the player choices?

[cousin_joe]

In regards to my suggestion for the Royal Navy. Currently with Royal Navy the UK gets a 10 IPC unit up front and i'm pretty sure it's not being selected and I think the reason is because often both an IC and a DD are in the plans for the UK.

So why take Royal Navy (10 IPC's) and build an IC (12 IPC's)? Sure you can place the DD anywhere but most of the time it's going to be around the UK. So it's just not a smart decision. Now even if you don't want to give the 14 IPC's for Royal Navy, why not let the UK player decide on how he's going to spend those 10 IPC's! Isn't Enhanced suppossed to be about giving the player choices?

Just by their very nature, some NAs are first round NAs, some are second round NAs. They are not all necessarily meant to go head to head. With that said, these two are actually very close in value...

Garrison - 1 free IC (0), 1 free INF (0), 3DD (20) = 30IPC
Royal Navy - 1 free DD (0), 1IC (12), 2DD (18) = 30IPC

You can purchase the same material for nearly the same price. The difference is that Garrison gives you a free INF up front (but nothing else), whereas Royal Navy gives you access to cheaper DDs long term (If thinking UK support for Pacific or vs. German SUB campaign). There is no absolute right choice (or at least that's where I'm trying to go).

There is a method to my apparent madness Vollick :) Often players make suggestions based on the NA in isolation, or in a this NA vs. that NA mentality, but it really is a lot more complex than that. One has to consider all the NA combinations, Allied NA combinations, and enemy NA counters/deterrents. I do appreciate your contributions though, keep it coming :)

[Vollick1979]

I'm kinda confused as why Afrika Korps needs such an upgrade. It's one of my favourite choices and the increases that some have suggested make me wonder if I have been missing something? I guess if you're upping 88's and AW you might as well up this slightly but it's pretty good as is.

Atlantic Wall is still a tough selection even if it has that anti-bombardment "shots." It's an NA that does have benefits later on (I will concede that) but Axis need to be aggressive early on. Perhaps if there was delayed NA's allowed I could see holding it back and potentially taking it but even in round 2 this NA is just not on my "shortlist" for selection.

German 88's now this is a tough call. I do agree with Joe (stop the presses!) that 2 ncm move is broken. You'll have artillery moving north then south until russian infantry are out of position. I could see this combined with Panzerblitz to create a very bleak picture for Russia. If you don't want to add an extra unit how about slightly upping artillery's assistance to infantry. Say for every 2 artillery 3 infantry can attack at 2. I originally thought for every artillery 2 infantry could attack at 2 but that's too powerful. This ability wouldn't likely help the player building nothing but artillery (but if he's building nothing but artillery he must be happy with 88's as they are) it would however allow players to want a slower game with Russia to have their NA. So if you want a fast game = Panzerblitz, slow game = German 88's.

For German LDB allow them to attack at 5 (at least for land combats) for the first round. This ability is often unusable do to the plethera of Allied Fighters everywhere.

German Panzerblitz keep it the same.

Wolfpacks are a tough call. They have some added benefit but it really requires the Baltic fleet to stick around and that is not cheap. How many subs do you buy to make it worth it to take Wolfpacks? If you have 4 subs you're draining the UK as much as you can. It's most likely impossible to convoy raid USA so wolfpacks and 3 subs do what 4 subs can do without wolfpacks, plus you have the extra unit for defense. Wolfpacks needs a boost though, -1 to detection rolls would combined with Super sups would make german subs in the Atlantic a far more likely scenario. It would almost force US/UK to go for combined arms. So my suggestion is -1 to enemy detection rolls.

[Vollick1979]

There is a method to my apparent madness Vollick :) Often players make suggestions based on the NA in isolation, or in a this NA vs. that NA mentality, but it really is a lot more complex than that. One has to consider all the NA combinations, Allied NA combinations, and enemy NA counters/deterrents. I do appreciate your contributions though, keep it coming :)

There are 225 Axis NA combinations, 296 Allied Combinations for a grand total of
66 600 different scenarios for NA's if you don't factor in the fact that some NA's are chosen round 1 and others round 2. If you bring that factor into the equation the numbers jump dramatically. The axis have 900 different NA permutations and the allies have 576. This increases the total number of different scenarios to 518 400.

Believe me Joe I don't make NA suggestions based in isolation, i'm just finding it hard to believe you have considered all the combinations and permutations. ;)

[cousin_joe]

There are 225 Axis NA combinations, 296 Allied Combinations for a grand total of
66 600 different scenarios for NA's if you don't factor in the fact that some NA's are chosen round 1 and others round 2. If you bring that factor into the equation the numbers jump dramatically. The axis have 900 different NA permutations and the allies have 576. This increases the total number of different scenarios to 518 400.

Believe me Joe I don't make NA suggestions based in isolation, i'm just finding it hard to believe you have considered all the combinations and permutations. ;)

You're pulling numbers out of your butt like Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man" and you're calling me mad?!?!? :eek:

[AxisRoll]

I still want to see upgrades to Japs. they are weak.

And when are we starting our Team Game?

[cousin_joe]

I'm kinda confused as why Afrika Korps needs such an upgrade. It's one of my favourite choices and the increases that some have suggested make me wonder if I have been missing something? I guess if you're upping 88's and AW you might as well up this slightly but it's pretty good as is.

Afrika Corps is nice, but once the units are gone, the NA is gone. The US should always eventually be able to overrun the Germans in Africa but this amkes it a tad harder.


Atlantic Wall is still a tough selection even if it has that anti-bombardment "shots." It's an NA that does have benefits later on (I will concede that) but Axis need to be aggressive early on. Perhaps if there was delayed NA's allowed I could see holding it back and potentially taking it but even in round 2 this NA is just not on my "shortlist" for selection.


It's a nice combo with Super Subs R1 because he'll have to think twice about going CB in response. It is definitely a 2nd rounder, and I think I will be looking at delayed NAs.

The other thing to consider is that with delayed NAs, instead of an IPC payout, the penalty will be that the NA comes into effect at the end of the turn rather than immediately. This will lower some of the value of the "instant effect" NA's relative to the NAs that come into effect at the end of the turn anyway (eg. Atlantic Wall)


German 88's now this is a tough call. I do agree with Joe (stop the presses!) that 2 ncm move is broken. You'll have artillery moving north then south until russian infantry are out of position. I could see this combined with Panzerblitz to create a very bleak picture for Russia. If you don't want to add an extra unit how about slightly upping artillery's assistance to infantry. Say for every 2 artillery 3 infantry can attack at 2. I originally thought for every artillery 2 infantry could attack at 2 but that's too powerful. This ability wouldn't likely help the player building nothing but artillery (but if he's building nothing but artillery he must be happy with 88's as they are) it would however allow players to want a slower game with Russia to have their NA. So if you want a fast game = Panzerblitz, slow game = German 88's.


Panzerblitz and German 88's are mutually exclusive. You're going to want to purchase ARM or RTL, but not both, as the NAs value increases via a mass effect. You are right about playing for the short game and the long game respectively, and sometimes committing too early to a short game may not be in your best interest. Sometimes showing Panzerblitz G1 gievs away your plan to early.

I'm favoring the 88's RTL placement though to be any gray territory. That way, German 88's could substitute as a poor man's Afrika Corps with the RTL in Libya. this would make the NA more appealing.


For German LDB allow them to attack at 5 (at least for land combats) for the first round. This ability is often unusable do to the plethera of Allied Fighters everywhere.


LDB is already great for Dead Zone exchange. You're adding 6 attack power on offense which doesn't need to stay in the territory. Also, LDB will force the Allies to usually buy at least 2 carriers - that's a good NA.

LDB also has the potential to be combined with LRA or Jet Power for a mere 12 IPC (Japan uses Naval Adv for these J1). LRA + LDB is particularly scary.

Don't forget a Combo of LDB + Super Subs. Allies need to buy ACs AND DDs. They will need HUGE naval investments in the Atlantic which is exactly what you want them to do as the Axis.

German Panzerblitz keep it the same.

I agree with you here. I think the changes to Afrika Corps and German 88's will seriously chalenge Panzerblitz as the primary NA. I think these 3 are generally mutually exclusive, as a strong Africa campaign will detract from a strong RTL or ARM based Europe campaign. The other 1st rounder to consider is Wolfpacks then, which can put an instant hurt on the UK (place your starting 3 SUBs off the UK coast and take away 8IPC on UK1 - scarrrryyy!!! :eek: ) Wolfpacks is also mutually exclusive with the first 3.

That would then setup Atlantic Wall and LDB as your 2nd round NAs.

Wolfpacks are a tough call. They have some added benefit but it really requires the Baltic fleet to stick around and that is not cheap. How many subs do you buy to make it worth it to take Wolfpacks? If you have 4 subs you're draining the UK as much as you can. It's most likely impossible to convoy raid USA so wolfpacks and 3 subs do what 4 subs can do without wolfpacks, plus you have the extra unit for defense. Wolfpacks needs a boost though, -1 to detection rolls would combined with Super sups would make german subs in the Atlantic a far more likely scenario. It would almost force US/UK to go for combined arms. So my suggestion is -1 to enemy detection rolls.

Here's what I'm thinking for Wolfpacks...

1 FREE SUB!!! :D

In my game vs. axis_roll, I think it was quite evident that Wolfpacks were simply not cost effective. You throw in a free SUB and it's a whole new ball game :) I will do the same with Kaitens likely. I generally am not in favor of anything that forces players to remember things, and so I'll probably ditch the 1 IPC discount on Kaitens. However, the free SUBs with Kaitens and Wolfpacks, in addition to Super Subs by the Japanese (and Shared Tech to Ger) really opens up an Axis "SUBS! SUBS! and more SUBS!!!" strategy :D

[cousin_joe]

GENERAL:
----------------
Bilateral Nonagression - Treaty is broken if either side attacks a territory owned by the other. If this territory is a red or orange territory, defender gains 4 free INF.
D-Day - on D-Day, all attacking land and sea units must come in through SZ 7. Only loaded UK TRNs can be involved in combat in SZ 7 during the attack. UK DDs and BBs can bombard but only if SZ 7 was empty at the start of US turn.
-If WEur ever becomes controlled by Allies prior to D-Day, Allies can no longer conduct D-Day
Delayed 2nd NA - The 2nd NA may be delayed, but when it is eventually declared, it comes into effect at the end of the turn (not immediately)
Transports - transports may now move out of a hostile SZ, and drop off units into a friendly territory.

RUSSIA:
------------
Lend Lease - increase conversion limit to 12IPC

GERMANY:
-----------------
Afrika Corps - increase to 2INF,1RTL,1ARM
German 88's - may place 1 free RTL on any Gray territory
Atlantic Wall - free 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot vs. amphibious assault on any Gray territory as long as 1 defending unit. Can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.
Wolfpacks - now comes with one free SUB

UK:
-----
Royal Navy - DDs now cost 1IPC less
Radar - may place 1 free AAGun on any Tan territory worth at least 2IPC

JAPAN:
-----------
Naval Advantage - 16 IPC toward Tech (4 free rolls)
Kaitens - now comes with one free SUB
Banzais - may place 1 free INF on any Orange mainland territory

USA:
-------
Marines - may place 1 free INF on any Green continental US territory


-I think it's generally agreed that the NAs that got beefed up are generally considered the weakest. Lend-Lease has more oomph to it now. Ger 88's, Wolfpacks, and Afrika Corps are all fairly competitive with Panzerblitz as a 1st round NA now. Atlantic Wall got a significant boost and counters Combined Arms nicely. Royal Navy and Radar get much needed boosts. Since Naval Adv is generally the #1 choice, Japan essentially gains 4IPC at Game Start. Banzais with the free mainland INF may challenge Naval Adv as a 1st round NA. Kaitens get a boost. Marines, as always, is still a 2nd Round NA, but the free INF is nice. At this point, I don't really see much else that needs to be changed. I'm still open to suggestions though. You guys have helped to come up with some good stuff so far. :)

[DocD]

GENERAL:
----------------
Bilateral Nonagression - Treaty is broken if either side attacks a territory owned by the other. If this territory is a red or orange territory, defender gains 4 free INF.

Again I ask what is up with this?

Treaty in effect. Japan takes India. Russia blitzes tanks into India next round taking it back for the Allies. Treaty is broken now??? Russia can now invade Manchuria on their next round without fear of Japanese 4 inf??? Is this what you are saying??

The scenario I have given is very real and possible. This is broken as written.

[axis_roll]

In my game vs. axis_roll, I think it was quite evident that Wolfpacks were simply not cost effective.
That doesn't mean I will lose the game because of this cost outlay. :)

I do agree that this strategy is NOT cost effective.

[Vollick1979]

Again I ask what is up with this?

Treaty in effect. Japan takes India. Russia blitzes tanks into India next round taking it back for the Allies. Treaty is broken now??? Russia can now invade Manchuria on their next round without fear of Japanese 4 inf??? Is this what you are saying??

The scenario I have given is very real and possible. This is broken as written.

I agree with you Doc. Also a single Russian infantry in India or Sinkiang will prevent a Japanese Attack because the treaty will be canceled. Japan needs those 4 infantry to help defend the mainland early on.

A better treaty would be if Russian units are present on Japanese soil it triggers 4 Japanese infantry in an adjacent orange territory and If Japanese units are on Russia soil it triggers 4 Russian infantry in an adjacent red territory. And of course keep the current rules in place. ie. Russia attacks a orange territory 4 Japanese infantry in that territory and if Japan attacks a red territory 4 Russian infantry there.

This would prevent US marines from taking the territory and having Russian units move into reinforce.

[cousin_joe]

Again I ask what is up with this?

Treaty in effect. Japan takes India. Russia blitzes tanks into India next round taking it back for the Allies. Treaty is broken now??? Russia can now invade Manchuria on their next round without fear of Japanese 4 inf??? Is this what you are saying??

The scenario I have given is very real and possible. This is broken as written.

Think of things from a Political perspective...

Japan and Russia forge a Nonagression Treaty
Japanese forces invade and take India from the British
Russian forces attack Japanese forces in India
-Would this not be considered violation of the treaty??? If I have just taken a territory and my "supposed" Treaty co-signee then attacks me, I'd be pretty ******!!! :mad:

Now, some might say, shouldn't Japanese be considered to be breaking the treaty if they attack Sinkiang, with Russian forces present?? How about India??
-from a politcal perspective, there were Russian supported forces in China during WWII and this did not break the treaty. Furthermore, such an attack would typically be insufficient grounds to break a treaty (consider other proxy wars)
-from a Gameplay perspective, Pagan hit it right on the head. This would limit Japanese expansion in Asia and is hence an absolute no-no. How we design the treaty should preserve this dynamic:

Japan attacks Russian-owned territory - Breaks the Treaty
Russia attack Japanese-owned territory - Breaks the Treaty
-If the territory is an Original (ie. Homeland) territory - The Defender gets 4 free INF

Japan attacks UK or US-owned but Russia supported territory - Insufficient grounds to break the treaty
Russia attacks German-owned but Japanese supported territory - Insufficient grounds to break the treaty

Russians are free to play a supportive role, but not an agressive one. Japanese are free to expand without penalty. Attacking Homeland territory results in a very strong defensive response.

[cousin_joe]

Again I ask what is up with this?

Treaty in effect. Japan takes India. Russia blitzes tanks into India next round taking it back for the Allies. Treaty is broken now??? Russia can now invade Manchuria on their next round without fear of Japanese 4 inf??? Is this what you are saying??

The scenario I have given is very real and possible. This is broken as written.

To address your specific example...

First let me reiterate, Russian forces openly attacking Japanese gains in India would definitely be an Act of War, and right there would be sufficient grounds to break the treaty.

With that said, let's go through the scenario.

Japan takes India
Russia attacks Japanese in India. Since this is not an Orange territory, Japan does no get any free INF. By doing this Russia gives up it's 4 free INF
Now it's Japan's turn (Don't forget, Japan will get a chance to act before Russia can take Manchuria)... Japan is now free to take the Sov Far Eastern territories without penalty. Furthermore, Japan can take India back without penalty. Alternatively, Japan can just fortify Manchuria from Russian attack or prepare to counter strong if Russia does attack.

In the end, by attacking India, Russia is giving up 4 free INF, INF that are sorely needed to protect their Sov Far Eastern territories.

[cousin_joe]

I agree with you Doc. Also a single Russian infantry in India or Sinkiang will prevent a Japanese Attack because the treaty will be canceled. Japan needs those 4 infantry to help defend the mainland early on.

This is incorrect. These territories are US/UK owned and thus would not break the treaty.

A better treaty would be if Russian units are present on Japanese soil it triggers 4 Japanese infantry in an adjacent orange territory and If Japanese units are on Russia soil it triggers 4 Russian infantry in an adjacent red territory. And of course keep the current rules in place. ie. Russia attacks a orange territory 4 Japanese infantry in that territory and if Japan attacks a red territory 4 Russian infantry there.

This would prevent US marines from taking the territory and having Russian units move into reinforce.

How does this stop Russian units in Sinkiang from attacking Japanese units in China? This is the main issue here.

[Vollick1979]

Yes you are right CJ, attacking either Sinkiang or India with a single Russian unit wouldn't violate the treaty.

Well under your proposal Russian units can still NCM into Japanese Territories if the Americans take it a turn before. This is the main concern I have with the non agression treaty. Personally I don't see stopping Russian units from attacking Japanese units in Sinkiang as a main issue. If Russia takes China Japan gets a chance to counter-attack before US can reinforce.

[Vollick1979]

With that said, let's go through the scenario.

Japan takes India
Russia attacks Japanese in India. Since this is not an Orange territory, Japan does no get any free INF. By doing this Russia gives up it's 4 free INF

Japan also loses it's 4 free infantry. ;)


Now it's Japan's turn (Don't forget, Japan will get a chance to act before Russia can take Manchuria)... Japan is now free to take the Sov Far Eastern territories without penalty.
Because we know how every Japanese player loves Soviet Far East and the 1 IPC it gives. ;)


Furthermore, Japan can take India back without penalty.
What penalty exactly would have applied? I though you just told me above how I was incorrect and that since it's a UK territory Japan can attack India without any negative effects on the treaty!


Alternatively, Japan can just fortify Manchuria from Russian attack or prepare to counter strong if Russia does attack.

In the end, by attacking India, Russia is giving up 4 free INF, INF that are sorely needed to protect their Sov Far Eastern territories.

Well I would say at times it's beneficial for the Japanese to have the treaty (early on) and there are times when it's beneficial for the Russians to have the treaty (generally later) but if an Orange Crush is in the works it would be smart for Russia to try and break the treaty early (without the 4 infantry).

[cousin_joe]

Well under your proposal Russian units can still NCM into Japanese Territories if the Americans take it a turn before. This is the main concern I have with the non agression treaty.

This is more fantasy than reality. Japan should be able to turn China into a dead zone. Even if somehow, someway a combination of Rus + US forces could hold China to actually be able to do a 1-2 on Japanese territory, Japan should be able to respond in force with naval support (Rus support is thus insignificant). The relative rarity of this situation, in addition to it's insignificance, does not justify adding complex rules to prevent it.

Personally I don't see stopping Russian units from attacking Japanese units in Sinkiang as a main issue. If Russia takes China Japan gets a chance to counter-attack before US can reinforce.

A. It's a Nonagression treaty. Russia shouldn't be attacking Japan in the fist place.
B. People are proposing changes feeling Japan is too hindered on the minland. Russian units attacking Japanese gains is a FAR greater detriment than Russian units supporting Americans gains (from Japan mainland).

[cousin_joe]

Well I would say at times it's beneficial for the Japanese to have the treaty (early on) and there are times when it's beneficial for the Russians to have the treaty (generally later) but if an Orange Crush is in the works it would be smart for Russia to try and break the treaty early (without the 4 infantry).

Russia is in no position to break the treaty R1
On R2, they can retake India but not Manchuria (as Japan would still get 4 free INF)
So, that leaves them with R3 to take Manchuria - by this time, Japan should already be in Manchuria in force, or able to retake in force on J3.

So by taking Ind on R2, Russia is essentially losing 4 INF which could slow the Japanese. Barring either some very bad luck or very bad strategy on the Japanese part, Japan would likely have never seen those INF anyway. If Russia is going to take Manchuria, it's most likely going to happen on R2, not R3.

[AxisRoll]

For Lend Lease, could you add that if you dont convert 12 / turn, you can save the money? Then i can get a Russian Bomber?

[Vollick1979]

This is more fantasy than reality. Japan should be able to turn China into a dead zone. Even if somehow, someway a combination of Rus + US forces could hold China to actually be able to do a 1-2 on Japanese territory, Japan should be able to respond in force with naval support (Rus support is thus insignificant). The relative rarity of this situation, in addition to it's insignificance, does not justify adding complex rules to prevent it.


Well in our game against TeamAR, DocD and I are seeing how 4 Russian infantry in Manchuria and 4 more in China really can provide problems, plus the treaty isn't broken. But yes it's an odd situation.


A. It's a Nonagression treaty. Russia shouldn't be attacking Japan in the fist place.
Well yes it's a non agression treaty but if it's in Russia's best interest to attack a Japanese India I don't see how you can say Russia shouldn't be attacking Japan in the first place.


B. People are proposing changes feeling Japan is too hindered on the minland. Russian units attacking Japanese gains is a FAR greater detriment than Russian units supporting Americans gains (from Japan mainland).

I disagree with that, currently there are only two territories you're at all likely to see Russian units attack Japanese occupied territories (China and India). And with the current rules if Russia attacks Japanese occupied China they will have to face a counter attack and the Non-Aggression treaty is still in tact. Under what you propose the treaty is scrapped and it's the same situation. If i'm Japan I want that Non-Aggression treaty early on. That treaty gives Japan a lot more flexibility in leaving Manchuria empty even with 6 Russians in Buryatia.

[pagan]

I am glad CJ moved at least a little bit on his previous position with regard to the pact.

I do think that the problems some are having with this is the Russian defense of asia. Where the idea of it is appaling. We need to 'forget' this and deal with the mechanics as they are. Russia defends asia in A&A. The degree of their defense is based on game play.

The crux of the Pact as listed however is what should be addressed, and the only thing I see where it can be attacked is the loss of japanese Inf-pact units when USSR acts aggressively in south asia.

I think the arguements are based on a one-sided view that Jpaan should not lose its INF in some manner. But I personally like a dual nature of a rule.

Now if the Pact was all encompassing (any japan/usssr terr) with the aggressive force attacking the other's Owned-Territory then would that be a problem?

If Japan ever attacked any Russian-Owned territory, that territory receives +4INF
If Russia ever attacked any Japanese-owned territory, that territory recieves +4INF
--one of these two countries will be getting the INF, in 99% of all games.
--keeping it in the exact territory attacked is simple, but allows a simple rule structure, without brining in original territories and whatever.

[axis_roll]

Japan attacks Russian-owned territory - Breaks the Treaty
Russia attack Japanese-owned territory - Breaks the Treaty
-If the territory is an Original (ie. Homeland) territory - The Defender gets 4 free INF

Japan attacks UK or US-owned but Russia supported territory - Insufficient grounds to break the treaty
Russia attacks German-owned but Japanese supported territory - Insufficient grounds to break the treaty

Russians are free to play a supportive role, but not an agressive one. Japanese are free to expand without penalty. Attacking Homeland territory results in a very strong defensive response.

I totally agree with this implementation. It hurts the allies (specifically the agressive Russia) more than the Japanese, which is what is needed.

[pagan]

it is actually MY idea there A_R.

[cousin_joe]

Japan only needs those 4 free INF to prevent a Russian attack on Manchuria on Round 2. Beyond Round 2, Japan can hold or easily retake Manchuria and thus doesn't really loe much if Russia breaks the treaty.

Russia needs it's 4INF to prevent Japan from getting into Russia's Far Eastern Territories (SFE,Yak,Bury). These INF are always helpful to Russia (whereas Japan's free INF are only helpful up to round 2 as by round 3, it is very unlikely, or very unwise, for Russia to attack Manchuria). Breaking the treaty is a bigger loss to Russia than it is to Japan.

[cousin_joe]

Finally the cavalry arrives... :D

Where were you pagan and axis_roll??? Vollick just doesn't seem to see how this is a very good rule, which accomplishes everything that needs to be done in the SE Asian theater from a Gameplay prespective.

Props to pagan on this one by the way.

[pagan]

I understand a lot of the subtle reasonings behind the rule change, CJ. I'm glad you deviated to it!

I was just wondering where the other guys would be willing to accept the rule at.

[cousin_joe]

For Lend Lease, could you add that if you dont convert 12 / turn, you can save the money? Then i can get a Russian Bomber?

No Russian Bombers. Otherwise, Enhanced would become the laughingstock of A&A variants :)

[axis_roll]

No Russian Bombers. Otherwise, Enhanced would become the laughingstock of A&A variants :)
Agreed. It's bad enough that Russia gets free fighters...

[DocD]

To address your specific example...

First let me reiterate, Russian forces openly attacking Japanese gains in India would definitely be an Act of War, and right there would be sufficient grounds to break the treaty.

With that said, let's go through the scenario.

Japan takes India
Russia attacks Japanese in India. Since this is not an Orange territory, Japan does no get any free INF. By doing this Russia gives up it's 4 free INF
Now it's Japan's turn (Don't forget, Japan will get a chance to act before Russia can take Manchuria)... Japan is now free to take the Sov Far Eastern territories without penalty. Furthermore, Japan can take India back without penalty. Alternatively, Japan can just fortify Manchuria from Russian attack or prepare to counter strong if Russia does attack.

In the end, by attacking India, Russia is giving up 4 free INF, INF that are sorely needed to protect their Sov Far Eastern territories.
Japan shouldn't be losing anything if it or it's troops are attacked by the Russians plain and simple. It's one thing for the Russians to passively baby sit Asia, but something entirely different to encourage them to do it. And this is exactly what you are encouraging in your posts.

Hell, what is it for Russia to send down a tank in R1 to India. Nothing.
Now, Japan can't even go there without losing her 4 inf? That's stupid in my book. Forget the politics dude, this is real life and the rules should reflect such.

[Vollick1979]

Where were you pagan and axis_roll??? Vollick just doesn't seem to see how this is a very good rule, which accomplishes everything that needs to be done in the SE Asian theater from a Gameplay prespective.


It's an ok rule but it doesn't accomplish everything that needs to be done in the SE Asian theatre. Any non-aggression treaty that allows Russia to reinforce a UK/USA occupied territory and susbsequently allow Japan to attack that territory without breaking the non-aggression treaty can hardly be declared to solve everything!

[axis_roll]

Japan shouldn't be losing anything if it or it's troops are attacked by the Russians plain and simple.
I think you are confused a bit Doc. Read:

Russia attack Japanese-owned territory - Breaks the Treaty
-If the territory is an Original (ie. Homeland) territory - The Defender gets 4 free INF
Japan is not losing anything (especially if it's an original orange territory), Russia is losing it's 4 free inf since she's the aggressor (in China on R2, for example)

Hell, what is it for Russia to send down a tank in R1 to India. Nothing. Now, Japan can't even go there without losing her 4 inf? That's stupid in my book. Forget the politics dude, this is real life and the rules should reflect such.
I think you are confused a bit Doc. Read:

Japan attacks UK or US-owned but Russia supported territory - Insufficient grounds to break the treaty

[axis_roll]

It's an ok rule but it doesn't accomplish everything that needs to be done in the SE Asian theatre. Any non-aggression treaty that allows Russia to reinforce a UK/USA occupied territory and susbsequently allow Japan to attack that territory without breaking the non-aggression treaty can hardly be declared to solve everything!
The problem was Japan was getting handcuffed by the treaty, but Russia was not.

With the rule changes, Japan can now attack non-russian territories (which should be outside the realm of soviet 'defense') without having to risk opening the door up to Russia attacking(i.e. not breaking the treaty) Japan still gets the 4 inf beef up on original territories if Russia attacks.

[AxisRoll]

Well Let's think of all possibilities.

Our Game, USA takes Manchuria. Russia supports in NCM.

Realistically, If I was Japan, I would declare WAR on Russia 2.

But if Japs took China or India and Russia Liberated, Would the Japs declare WAR on Russia??? I am not sure, but much less than if they are defending *** Territory.

So in 1st case, I think the no one gets 4 Inf, and Treaty is off.

[Vollick1979]

I think a Japanese 1 inf/turn NA would solve a lot of the problems regarding the Non-Aggression treaty. It's a lot of fun to have Russians and Japanese skirmish over China and India while keeping the treaty in tact.

[AxisRoll]

Yes I agree. Let me ask this.

IS KJF or BAG (Britian and America vs Germany) become the standard?

We are seeing Japs parallized. So to me they need help.
7 Units a turn is incredible.
It's like UK in 1st edtion in persia, where it was unlimited buy. thats only 1 or 2 more units we are talking about.

[cousin_joe]

Yes I agree. Let me ask this.

IS KJF or BAG (Britian and America vs Germany) become the standard?

We are seeing Japs parallized. So to me they need help.
7 Units a turn is incredible.
It's like UK in 1st edtion in persia, where it was unlimited buy. thats only 1 or 2 more units we are talking about.

Japan is getting a lot of help with the proposed changes...

Naval Advantage is taken a lot of the time, and now you get all 4 rolls for free. That means an Additional 4 IPC at game start.

Banzais now comes with 1 free mainland INF

Bialteral Nonagression now gives Japan 4 free INF if Orange territory attacked. Also if Russia attacks a Japanese-controlled territory, Russia loses their free INF.

Delayed NAs is also a big advantage for Japan in the Pacific Theater.

Those are all very nice bonuses , not to mention the changes to Germany as well, which helps ease pressure off Japan.

[cousin_joe]

Oh great!!!

After seeing DocD and Vollick's game against Team AR, it looks like the Nonagression Treaty might still need a more clarifications.

Bilateral Nonagression Treaty

Russia and Japan have a Bilateral Nonagression Treaty whereby:
A. If Japan attacks a Red territory, Russia may place 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat
B. If Russia attacks an Orange territory, Japan may place 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat.
*If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.

This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia attacks a Japanese-controlled land territory
2. Japan attacks a Russian-controlled land territory
3. Russia moves units into a UK or US-controlled Orange territory
4. Japan moves units into a German-controlled Red territory

If anyone comes up with a cleaner, more succinct way of putting this, please let me know. I despise these complex explanations, and even though Russians reinforcing the US in a Japanese territory SHOULDN'T happen, I suppose it still CAN happen and should be addressed. The presence of Russians on Japanese soil is an event that should trigger breaking of the treaty.

[cousin_joe]

GENERAL:
----------------
Bilateral Nonagression - Treaty is broken if either side attacks a territory owned by the other. If this territory is a red or orange territory, defender gains 4 free INF.
D-Day - on D-Day, all attacking land and sea units must come in through SZ 7. Only loaded UK TRNs can be involved in combat in SZ 7 during the attack. UK DDs and BBs can bombard but only if SZ 7 was empty at the start of US turn.
-If WEur ever becomes controlled by Allies prior to D-Day, Allies can no longer conduct D-Day
Delayed 2nd NA - The 2nd NA may be delayed, but when it is eventually declared, it comes into effect at the end of the turn (not immediately)
Transports - transports may now move out of a hostile SZ, and drop off units into a friendly territory.

RUSSIA:
------------
Lend Lease - increase conversion limit to 12IPC

GERMANY:
-----------------
Afrika Corps - increase to 2INF,1RTL,1ARM
German 88's - may place 1 free RTL on any Gray territory
Atlantic Wall - free 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot vs. amphibious assault on any Gray territory as long as 1 defending unit. Can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.
Wolfpacks - now comes with one free SUB

UK:
-----
Royal Navy - DDs now cost 1IPC less
Radar - may place 1 free AAGun on any Tan territory worth at least 2IPC

JAPAN:
-----------
Naval Advantage - 16 IPC toward Tech (4 free rolls)
Kaitens - now comes with one free SUB
Banzais - may place 1 free INF on any Orange mainland territory

USA:
-------
Marines - may place 1 free INF on any Green continental US territory



Bilateral Nonagression is still undergoing some changes, but I think the rest of these changes will be a go. If you think any further changes are still due, speak now or forever hold your peace :)

[pagan]

Banzai +1INF is the difference early on with the low trany problem. And it is necessary against the +7 unit problem. Due to the fact that US1 is after J1, then this NA will most likely be a J2 selection with a US-IC purchase for Sink. At least, that's my initial feeling.

I do understand the plight of Japan (and especially the +7 allied unit per round!), but right now Japan can be held in check in asia without getting knocked off (and that's the point) unless US forgoes germany completely. In this case Japan should get knocked around, and you should understand what Germany can do without USA doing anything much in the atlantic.

Now if US goes with a predominant Atlantic campaign, Japan can aggressively hold its mainland territories and actually force Uk to compete in India. The whole thing relies on Germany making USSR stop sending additional units south for defense. +1INF Banzai along with either TE, or tranys allows Japan to SATURATE Asia with units. The number of units in asia depends upon the US navy in the Pacific. even against a +7 allied unit drop in asia, Japan can mass a LARGE force that can push into Sing or india. Allies with their +7units need to remove japan or they are forced to defend 2 zones.

Its fairly well coordinated. USA has the burden of choice between the Atlantic or Pacific campiagns. The other allied countries, including japan, 'go with the flow'.

[pagan]

Bilateral Nonagression Treaty

Russia and Japan have a Bilateral Nonagression Treaty whereby:
A. If Japan attacks a Red territory, Russia may place 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat
B. If Russia attacks an Orange territory, Japan may place 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat.
*If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.

This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia attacks a Japanese-OWNED land territory
2. Japan attacks a Russian-OWNED land territory
3. Russia moves units into a UK or US-OWNED Orange territory
4. Japan moves units into a German-OWNED Red territory



I believe 'controlled' could be confused with the unit on the territory. Such as: USSR ARM unit sitting on India by itself, someone could identify the territory 'control' as USSR.
Its minor, but I think the OWNED word, although it sounds clunky, avoids any misunderstanding.
It is not a necessary change, I'm just looking at it for possible confusions. I think you have stated it as succinctly as possible, and I agree with your 4 Void conditions.

[cousin_joe]

Thanks Pagan :) You're a Grammar Superstar!!! :D

[pagan]

How dare you insult me !


----IT WAS A JOKE----

in hindsight, i should have used a happy face...

[cousin_joe]

HUH!?!?! :confused:

Where did that come from? I was just saying thanks :)

[cousin_joe]

GENERAL:
----------------
Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Japan or Russia attacks a Red or Orange territory respectively, the defender may place 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia attacks a Japanese-OWNED land territory
2. Japan attacks a Russian-OWNED land territory
3. Russia moves units into a UK or US-OWNED Orange territory
4. Japan moves units into a German-OWNED Red territory

D-Day - on D-Day, all attacking land and sea units must come in through SZ 7. Only loaded UK TRNs can be involved in combat in SZ 7 during the attack. UK DDs and BBs can bombard but only if SZ 7 was empty at the start of US turn.
-If WEur ever becomes controlled by Allies prior to D-Day, Allies can no longer conduct D-Day

Delayed 2nd NA - The 2nd NA may be delayed, but when it is eventually declared, it comes into effect at the end of the turn (not immediately)

Transports - transports may now move out of a hostile SZ, and drop off units into a friendly territory.

RUSSIA:
------------
Lend Lease - increase conversion limit to 12IPC

GERMANY:
-----------------
Afrika Corps - increase to 2INF,1RTL,1ARM
German 88's - may place 1 free RTL on any Gray territory
Atlantic Wall - free 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot vs. amphibious assault on any Gray territory as long as 1 defending unit. Can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.
Wolfpacks - now comes with one free SUB

UK:
------
Royal Navy - DDs now cost 1IPC less
Radar - may place 1 free AAGun on any Tan territory worth at least 2IPC

JAPAN:
-----------
Naval Advantage - 16 IPC toward Tech (4 free rolls)
Kaitens - now comes with one free SUB
Banzais - may place 1 free INF on any Orange mainland territory

USA:
-------
Marines - may place 1 free INF on any Green continental US territory

OK, Last chance to suggest changes :) Otherwise, this is what's going in Enhanced 3.0 (I'm scrapping my formerly proposed Phase II and III as these look pretty good).

[pagan]

AtlanticWall

For any amphibious assault against a grey territory, INF defend at 3 for the first round of combat.

--Ok I understand this one. But what about dug in ARt and ARm units. Those are definately *****es to kill! I like the idea of +1DEF to all defending units for a rounds. I may be an ARM or ART producing germany and either of those NAs would almost disqualify me from taking AW since I HAVE to buy INF for defense.
--How about Attacking LAND units not getting a first round shot? (INCLUDING ABOVE)


In addition, the defender gets a single Anti-Ship shot at 1 that if successful, will kill a bombarding DD or Amphibing TRN.
----This is the one I don't understand. So in Germany gets a single shot of 1on a d6 per trany....or is it per assault?
----If its per assault, as I assume it is, Why not a 50-50 shot of killing either a DD or TN? Most amphibs are only attempted when the odds are that they will win, and there are not a great deal of amphib-assaults. This plus the increase in defense for the first round for all units would be a nice NA.


As it stands, it is my opinion that AW is still too weak of an NA to be selected. Its defensive nature also makes it SERIOUSLY less likely to be selected. I think it should be made MUCH MUCH stronger.

[cousin_joe]

AtlanticWall

For any amphibious assault against a grey territory, INF defend at 3 for the first round of combat.

--Ok I understand this one. But what about dug in ARt and ARm units. Those are definately *****es to kill! I like the idea of +1DEF to all defending units for a rounds. I may be an ARM or ART producing germany and either of those NAs would almost disqualify me from taking AW since I HAVE to buy INF for defense.
--How about Attacking LAND units not getting a first round shot?

Either of these is too tough on the Allies. D-Day needs to remain viable.


In addition, the defender gets a single Anti-Ship shot at 1 that if successful, will kill a bombarding DD or Amphibing TRN.
----This is the one I don't understand. So in Germany gets a single shot of 1on a d6 per trany....or is it per assault?
----If its per assault, as I assume it is, Why not a 50-50 shot of killing either a DD or TN? Most amphibs are only attempted when the odds are that they will win, and there are not a great deal of amphib-assaults. This plus the increase in defense for the first round for all units would be a nice NA.

It is a single, solitary shot.

This is more of a specific counter to Combined Arms. If the Allies pick up Combined Arms, and have plans to bombard you with 6 DD's/TURN (to kill off INF, not to take the territory), this would make it far less cost effective as they can expect to lose 13IPC (DD+1INF) to Germany's 9IPC (3INF)

If they don't have Combined Arms, then you're Anti-Ship shots will be taking out loaded trannies on Amphibs which could be a very HUGE prize (14IPC minimum!!!). Also, this may force the Allies to reinforce the Eastern Front via friendly territories rather than amphibs. Exchanging WEur with Germany could be a scary prospect knowing there's a 1/6 chance of losing your tranny.

True, it's defensive, and it's a second rounder, but don't underestimate that Anti-Ship shot :)

[pagan]

1 in 6 means that I will not even take it into account.
2 in 6 means that I will take it into account. Fodder a single INf+Tn (11ipcs)
3 in 6 means that I MIGHT take the CB tech. against defended areas (probably only W.E.)
--stand to lose a minimal Tn(8)+1INf(3) = 11IPCs (up to 16IPCs)
--minor CB tech will cost 16IPCs (up to 24IPCs) to take

___even with a 50% shot, its best to play the odds except if you have a large number of available DDs already in the water.

[DocD]

Everything looked just marvelous...EXCEPT.....GENERAL:
----------------
Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Japan or Russia attacks a Red or Orange territory respectively, the defender may place 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia attacks a Japanese-OWNED land territory
2. Japan attacks a Russian-OWNED land territory
3. Russia moves units into a UK or US-OWNED Orange territory
4. Japan moves units into a German-OWNED Red territory

This sounds all good....wait....what does void actually mean? If you say both sides lose their ability to receive the 4 free inf, I say this is still broken.
Roll says that it doesn't mean that, but that is not what the words are saying.


Transports - transports may now move out of a hostile SZ, and drop off units into a friendly territory.
Hey just wanted to be petty and say I was one of the first to point this rule change out with v1.2 or something. Nobody had a problem with it back then so I let it go. Nice to see good things come to those who wait.

Kaitens - now comes with one free SUB
Banzais - may place 1 free INF on any Orange mainland territory
I just don't see adding one free sub to Kaitens as making that much of a difference. What happened to -1ipc to purchase them. Did that get axed? Are they broken if you get -1ipc to purchase them? Royal Navy got a -1ipc boost and they don't even plan on dying a violent death.

For Banzai, this is Japan's only "land" NA. Seems it could have gotten alittle more than just a 1 inf boost.
I don't know....no one wants to see this one turn into a PB but, I'm guessing that 1 inf isn't enough.

[pagan]

VOID ---> being used as a transitive verb
...LAW...make something legally invalid: to deprive something of legal force

it's the perfect word for the situation, it invalidates the ENTIRE Pact, and so DocD doesn't like the rule.

The +4INF only occur when the original colored territories are attacked, otherwise the treaty is still broken, but no INF are given out.

Let's see if this is clearer: (changes in BLUE)

Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Japan or Russia attacks an original Red or Orange colored territory respectively, the Treaty is now void and the defender <delete_may> places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia attacks a Japanese-owned land territory
2. Japan attacks a Russian-owned land territory
3. Russia moves units into a UK or US-owned Orange territory
4. Japan moves units into a German-owned Red territory

[Stephen]

For Banzai, this is Japan's only "land" NA. Seems it could have gotten alittle more than just a 1 inf boost.
I think Japan needs another NA that gives them any kind of help on the mainland. Then again, I fall into the scrap Kaitens category....
Could fighters be given something, or maybe bombers? NA can be taken to get LRA, and this does make Japan's aircraft more versatile, which is good.

Anyways, if my armoured transport (transports defend at 2) idea hasn't won support, how about:

"Efficient transports", or, "Fixed Link"
Japan may transfer up to two infantry per turn from Japan to Manchuria or Kwangtung without requiring a transport.

Now I'm not saying the guys swim, just this gives Japan a way to get stuff to the mainland quickly, yet the 8 build limit in Japan is still there so it couldn't make a huge difference, while it would free up transports to move about, and provide help that Japan needs on the mainland.

[pagan]

JP-Tech is a great land AND sea unit. The defense really halts the allied INF attacks in the first rounds against the sparse japanese unit defenders.

Japan has quite a few FTRs (7) to start the game.

as for this--->
"Efficient transports", or, "Fixed Link"
Japan may transfer up to two infantry per turn from Japan to Manchuria or Kwangtung without requiring a transport.
--I think Japan needs to build a fleet to move things in the water. Either TNs or DDs.

If Japan is slow and patient, barring a german collapse or an All-out-Kill-Japan, Asia will be theirs.

You all need to start thinking differently with Japan. Its crazy to play a 2nd edition japan in an AARe world.

[axis_roll]

Agree with Pagan here. Japan has a totally new dynamic in Enhanced, more historical as CJ put it. Japan couldn't decide which to invest in: army or navy. She's again forced to decide in this game as well.

A patient Japan needs to only hold her own against the allies. Germany is the power house now. New game, new options, new strategy for Japan. I like it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I think delaying the second NA helps Japan greatly, this is probably still not enough with Kaitens. How about this:

1). Kaitens are $7 each.
2). Kaitens can not do convoy damage (to keep them from being the end all naval unit).

Japan makes the choice to build cheap one time/suicide submarines instead of a standard fleet submarine.

[pagan]

I prefer the +1 SS, for Kaitans. That's 8IPCs for an NA that you will purchase more of them.

I don't like the 7IPC cost. (NavAdv-SSX + delayed Kaitans + lower costs + target suicides = mass production). USA pacific becomes VERY slow. As i have it listed and excluding the lower cost (and including a free SS!), it see that they can still be an effective fleet by themselves. Its not easy killing subs, and subs are not likely to be blocked.

I initially told Cj I would not tkae Kaitans with a +1SS, but I have since changed my thinking.

I also don't think that the *** sub will be super special since it costs quite some money to keep the mainland, you need TNs (or DDs with TE NA_losing an SS NA), a stagnant navy to protect those TNs, and troops to move. Otherwise they would OWN the pacific.

[Vollick1979]

Bilateral Nonagression Treaty

Russia and Japan have a Bilateral Nonagression Treaty whereby:
A. If Japan attacks a Red territory, Russia may place 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat
B. If Russia attacks an Orange territory, Japan may place 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat.
*If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.

This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia attacks a Japanese-controlled land territory
2. Japan attacks a Russian-controlled land territory
3. Russia moves units into a UK or US-controlled Orange territory
4. Japan moves units into a German-controlled Red territory

If anyone comes up with a cleaner, more succinct way of putting this, please let me know. I despise these complex explanations, and even though Russians reinforcing the US in a Japanese territory SHOULDN'T happen, I suppose it still CAN happen and should be addressed. The presence of Russians on Japanese soil is an event that should trigger breaking of the treaty.

I know this is a stretch Joe but if Russia is occupying UK or US controlled Orange territories Japan is in a bad situation. Why not allow Japan to place the 4 infantry in an adjacent territory? So if Russia moves into Manchuria then Japan can place 4 inf in Kwangtung.

[Vollick1979]

Although I think delaying the second NA helps Japan greatly, this is probably still not enough with Kaitens. How about this:

1). Kaitens are $7 each.
2). Kaitens can not do convoy damage (to keep them from being the end all naval unit).

Japan makes the choice to build cheap one time/suicide submarines instead of a standard fleet submarine.

Would Japan still be able to build normal subs that can do convoy damage? Because once a sub is declared a Kaiten it's not going to live to be able to do CR.

Meh... still don't like Kaitens. :(

[axis_roll]

Would Japan still be able to build normal subs that can do convoy damage? Because once a sub is declared a Kaiten it's not going to live to be able to do CR.

Meh... still don't like Kaitens. :(
Normal subs are not an options any more.... for ease of game play.

I am not big on kaitens either.... I''m trying to get them be better but not turn them into Uber-boats

[Stephen]

Just to establish my stance, as far as I am concerned, the search for acceptable Kaitens is not worth the effort, as I think Kaitens are little better than giving a bomber NA to Russia.

At this point, despite how much energy is being spent on fixing them, I'm done with Kaitens. This is no rebel council :) but for my games, they're out, just need to find a suitable replacement. Does anyone have any suggestions?

[AxisRoll]

I dont like them either how they stand now. Japs can't be spending money on subs. With 7allied pieces getting dropped in asia a turn, who is going to buy subs.

[cousin_joe]

I know this is a stretch Joe but if Russia is occupying UK or US controlled Orange territories Japan is in a bad situation. Why not allow Japan to place the 4 infantry in an adjacent territory? So if Russia moves into Manchuria then Japan can place 4 inf in Kwangtung.

If Japan has played poorly enough to allow UK or US into their Orange mainland territories, they have dug their own grave and deserve to lose.

Rules shouldn't be designed to compensate for poor play.

[cousin_joe]

Just to establish my stance, as far as I am concerned, the search for acceptable Kaitens is not worth the effort, as I think Kaitens are little better than giving a bomber NA to Russia.

At this point, despite how much energy is being spent on fixing them, I'm done with Kaitens. This is no rebel council :) but for my games, they're out, just need to find a suitable replacement. Does anyone have any suggestions?

That's too bad Stephen, because Kaitens are actually one of Japan's best NAs, in certain situations of course :) . I've discussed this in the past, and so won't repeat myself, but for anyone who plans on playing me, if you see me pick Kaitens, you should know you've made a strategic mistake, and may as well quit.

[pagan]

Let's see if this is clearer: (changes in BLUE)

Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Japan or Russia attacks an original Red or Orange colored territory respectively, the Treaty is now void and the defender places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia attacks a Japanese-owned land territory
2. Japan attacks a Russian-owned land territory
3. Russia moves units into a UK or US-owned Orange territory
4. Japan moves units into a German-owned Red territory
5. Russia attacks Japanese Naval Units

---> SUGGESTION
How about being able to place the +4INF in the same territory, any owned adjacent territory, OR the capital?

[pagan]

ATLANTIC WALL upgrade?

The 1@1 shot for the Atlantic Wall is enough of an upgrade?
-There are very few actual Amphibious assaults in a game, and that even includes drops into unoccupied territories.
1 in 6 means that I will not even take The costal defense into account.
2 in 6 means that I will take it into account. Fodder a single INf+Tn (11ipcs)
3 in 6 means that I MIGHT take the CB-Tech. against defended areas (probably only W.E.)
--stand to lose a minimal Tn(8)+1INf(3) = 11IPCs (up to 16IPCs)
--minor CB tech will cost 16IPCs (up to 24IPCs) to take

___even with a 50% shot, its best to play the odds and lose LESS (11-IPCs) except if you have a large number of available DDs already in the water.

[cousin_joe]

Let's see if this is clearer: (changes in BLUE)

Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Japan or Russia attacks an original Red or Orange colored territory respectively, the Treaty is now void and the defender places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia attacks a Japanese-owned land territory
2. Japan attacks a Russian-owned land territory
3. Russia moves units into a UK or US-owned Orange territory
4. Japan moves units into a German-owned Red territory
5. Russia attacks Japanese Naval Units

---> SUGGESTION
How about being able to place the +4INF in the same territory, any owned adjacent territory, OR the capital?

Is 5 really necessary?
In the whole history of AAR, I have never seen Russia attack a Japanese Naval unit...
Again, the fewer rules the better. It doesn't seem worth the added text just to include a situation that would only affect 1 out of a 1000 games.

as far as the SUGGESTION:

Capital Placement - what stops Russia from moving these guys to the Eastern Front. It's not quite in the spirit of the Treaty

Adjacent Placement - too much of a defender advantage. The attacker is forced to guess whether the placement will be in the territory, and thus bring full force, or adjacent to the territory, and just bring enough to take the territory dead zone style.

[pagan]

I am seeing with my group a single USSR FTR sitting on buryatia. Sometimes there is a switch swap on R2 with lend lease and the US FTR.

This is used to hit lone Japanese purchased TNs, in the event that UK BMR/FTRs are not available for the same thing through the first 2-3 rounds.

It is a fairly annoying tactic by Russia, and it AFFECTS the way Japan has to purchase and place. This AFFECT should have some amount of backlash towards Russia if they follow through with it.

[cousin_joe]

ATLANTIC WALL upgrade?

The 1@1 shot for the Atlantic Wall is enough of an upgrade?
-There are very few actual Amphibious assaults in a game, and that even includes drops into unoccupied territories.
1 in 6 means that I will not even take The costal defense into account.
2 in 6 means that I will take it into account. Fodder a single INf+Tn (11ipcs)
3 in 6 means that I MIGHT take the CB-Tech. against defended areas (probably only W.E.)
--stand to lose a minimal Tn(8)+1INf(3) = 11IPCs (up to 16IPCs)
--minor CB tech will cost 16IPCs (up to 24IPCs) to take

___even with a 50% shot, its best to play the odds and lose LESS (11-IPCs) except if you have a large number of available DDs already in the water.

The AW NA was not re-designed to kill amphibious assaults... rather, it is specifically geared to counter the Combined Arms Tech, which currently has no counter (check CJ vs AR Grudge Match)

Combined Arms strategy would be to develop a fleet of 4-8 DDs which can continuously bombard Germany's shores every round trading a Single Attacking INF for 2-4 Defending INF.

Now, an INF-NA like Commonwealth is worth 3 IPC/round

Let's assume 6 Bombarding DD's
-with a 1/6 shot, you are doing 10 x 1/6 = 1.67IPC damage/round
-with a 2/6 shot, you are doing 10 x 1/3 = 3.33IPC damage/round

Combine this with the already present advantage of INF defending at 3, and one should quickly see AW is overpowered with a 2/6 shot.

Also consider the cost to develop Combined Bombardment as well, 16-24 IPC.

Now if the Allies don't even have CB, you're looking at 11-16 IPCs going down the tubes. What happens if you're trading WEur??? This becomes VERY RISKY for the Allies at a 2/6 shot of losing loaded trannies. That's just too powerful.

Here's my take:

If the Germans take Atlantic Wall, the Allies have 2 options:

A. Don't take CB. Strategy is more restricted to more noncombat drops if possible as you want to avoid losing loaded trannies (as DDs unavailable to take the hit).

B. Take CB. Pay the extra tech costs, but have more mobility in your dropoffs, as you let the DDs take the hits rather than the trannies.

With no Atlantic Wall, Germany is very susceptible to a Combined Bombard strategy (This is doubly bad if Germany ran a heavy SUB campaign)

Bottom Line: The rule is meant to limit the Combined Bombard strategy. It is not meant to kill Amphibious Assaults overall.

[cousin_joe]

I am seeing with my group a single USSR FTR sitting on buryatia. Sometimes there is a switch swap on R2 with lend lease and the US FTR.

This is used to hit lone Japanese purchased TNs, in the event that UK BMR/FTRs are not available for the same thing through the first 2-3 rounds.

It is a fairly annoying tactic by Russia, and it AFFECTS the way Japan has to purchase and place. This AFFECT should have some amount of backlash towards Russia if they follow through with it.

Okay, I will include it, but it would be really nice if we could get everything all in a few sentences rather than the list of situations where the rule is voided. The rule just seems very bulky now, especially compared to what it was like with 2.1 beta.

[pagan]

Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Japan or Russia attacks an original Red or Orange colored territory respectively, the Treaty is now void and the defender places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia/Japan attacks Japan/Russian-owned land territory
2. Russia/Japan moves units into a Friendly-owned original Orange/Red colored territory
3.Russia/Japan attacks Japanese/Russian Naval Units

[axis_roll]

ATLANTIC WALL upgrade?

The 1@1 shot for the Atlantic Wall is enough of an upgrade?
-There are very few actual Amphibious assaults in a game, and that even includes drops into unoccupied territories.
1 in 6 means that I will not even take The costal defense into account.
2 in 6 means that I will take it into account. Fodder a single INf+Tn (11ipcs)
3 in 6 means that I MIGHT take the CB-Tech. against defended areas (probably only W.E.)
--stand to lose a minimal Tn(8)+1INf(3) = 11IPCs (up to 16IPCs)
--minor CB tech will cost 16IPCs (up to 24IPCs) to take

___even with a 50% shot, its best to play the odds and lose LESS (11-IPCs) except if you have a large number of available DDs already in the water.
How about THIS for atlantic wall:

1 shot if the grey territory is occupied, and an additional shot if there is an anti-aircraft gun for a potential of 2 shots @1.

If that's too much (loss of 2 allied ships), you can say 2@1 to get one hit.

[Stephen]

AW: The problem of over-bombarding can be limited by allowing only as many bombards as land units brought in.

Non-aggression treaty question:
Have to make 3. Japan/Russia attacks Russian/Japanese naval unit. If Russia shouldn't be hitting Japanese builds, Japan shouldn't be free to try to take out the lone-Russian wondersub.

[pagan]

AW: The problem of over-bombarding can be limited by allowing only as many bombards as land units brought in.

JAPAN needs the ability to bombard with mulitple BBs & DDs and 1-2 forces.
But if necessary, then I think its one of those 'Rational' changes to A&A, that just 'had-to-be'.

[Vollick1979]

I think Stephen is referring to with the German AW NA you simply limit the number of bombardments to one per attacking unit. So if you bring in 1 infantry you can't bombard with 3 DD's. ;)

I do not like the 1@1 shot to sink loaded transports or DD's. Sure it makes AW economically viable but something about losing a loaded transport just doesn't sit right with me.

[pagan]

Ok I see....Nice suggestion to isolate it for the AW NA, Vollick. that old idea is a basic universal rule so I assumed Stephen meant it as such.

I don't like the Shooting out at Ships idea either.

How about this ??? _ i am also looking at this thing as a national advantage, where taking this thing causes problems for the allies like the others do: AK, LDB, PB ... to name three.

Atlantic Wall
--bombardments are limited to an equal number of amphib land units
--Infantry defend at 3 for the first round
--attacking force only does HALF (rounded up) of their hits for the first round

_______________
BTW_ if anyone has heard from me enough about these changes then I will desist. I just thought we could talk openly about these things before CJ finalizes them.

[axis_roll]

Ok I see....Nice suggestion to isolate it for the AW NA, Vollick. that old idea is a basic universal rule so I assumed Stephen meant it as such.

I don't like the Shooting out at Ships idea either.

How about this ???

Atlantic Wall
--bombardments are limited to an equal number of amphib land units
--Infantry defend at 3 for the first round
--attacking force only does HALF (rounded up) of their hits for the first round

_______________
BTW_ if anyone has heard from me enough about these changes then I will desist. I just thought we could talk openly about these things before CJ finalizes them.
No, please continue. Discussion is good.

You state that
that old idea is a basic universal rule
just ain't true! It's not listed in the rule book.

It became a defacto standard from online CD-rom clubs because when you hit more than you brought, the buggy software game would lock up and require an edit to fix the number of hits to continue.

In the past, Offshore Strategy was cost-prohibitive. Who could afford to add many BB's at $24 a crack??

I like that limit on Atlantic wall. It's still an advantage to the allies (the DD's do offshores with combined arms), but not such a great economic one (e.g. 7 DDs and a BB with 1 inf against a German stack of 20 inf)

Scrap the half hit idea, IMHO. Too combersome.

[pagan]

The old idea is a basic universal rule....(combined with previous sentence)

I mean to say here that the rule itself involved all countries 'universally', when adopted into a game.

[Vollick1979]

Pagan, the half hit idea could make it next to impossible to breach a heavily fortified Western Europe. How about:

Atlantic Wall
--bombardments are limited to an equal number of amphib land units
--all land units defend at +1.

[pagan]

Im fine with that Vollick, Cj thinks the +1 land unit defense for the first round is too much, where I think its 'barely' enough for a viable NA

[Vollick1979]

Well +1 per land unit is only for the first turn. As germany i'd very hesitant to defend W.Europe with anything but infantry for fear of losing them during an amphib. It should also be noted that the +1 per unit gives Tanks a 33% boost while it gives infantry a +50% boost. So a +1 land unit defense combined with limiting bombardments is something I might consider as a second NA.

[axis_roll]

Im fine with that Vollick, Cj thinks the +1 land unit defense for the first round is too much, where I think its 'barely' enough for a viable NAI think it's powerful. Not sure is it's uber-powerful though :)

I think I might seriously consider AW if the +1 and the limited offshores were implemented.

[Vollick1979]

Kaitens are actually one of Japan's best NAs, in certain situations of course :) .
So in certain situations Kaitens are one of Japan's best 6 NAs? ;)

I've discussed this in the past, and so won't repeat myself, but for anyone who plans on playing me, if you see me pick Kaitens, you should know you've made a strategic mistake, and may as well quit.

I can see it now: CJ delays taking Kaitens until round 10 when Germany is in Caucasus and Japan is in India. CJ takes Kaitens and declares them the deciding factor in the game and how awesome Kaitens are! ;)

[Stephen]

I think the prob with +1 is that you end up with arm defending at a 4 which means 2 4s in the first round cost the same as one 4 normally does.

Where's the middle ground... can't find it :) maybe half the defending tanks round down defend at 4? :)

[Vollick1979]

It's only for one round where tanks defend at 4 Stephen. Plus why shouldn't artillery also get an increase? The increase from 3 to 4 isn't as much as the increase from 2 to 3 and there will be less tanks or artillery defending than infantry so I see the tank/artillery contribution as far less of a factor than the infantry contribution.

[Stephen]

Artillery don't need an increase in defence since they are offensively minded units that work best on defence, and it makes little sense to stack artillery in WEur.

I really see no problem with giving them a +1 as well. My suggestion on tanks is only to appease the ones who feel giving land units +1 is too strong.

All this talk of making NAs too strong or overpowered... if they replace something else that isn't being taken, then that's good for variety and balance. Whatever AW contributes means that the defending player can't have both PB and AK, or has to choose one of PB, AK, LDB, etc... These things should be considered, since consensus seems to be that PB is a no-brainer (anything that moves us away from predictability is good), and variety is good.

[cousin_joe]

I think Stephen is referring to with the German AW NA you simply limit the number of bombardments to one per attacking unit. So if you bring in 1 infantry you can't bombard with 3 DD's. ;)

I do not like the 1@1 shot to sink loaded transports or DD's. Sure it makes AW economically viable but something about losing a loaded transport just doesn't sit right with me.

I'm glad the 1@1 to sink loaded transports makes you feel uneasy. That's what it was designed to do... just like an AAGun makes me feel uneasy about sending in my BMBR for an SBR.

AW, as I have designed it, makes the attacker think twice about that Bombardment, as they must truly consider if the Bombardment is worth it, much like deciding if the SBR against an AA-defended territory is worth it. This deterrence factor alone is something that can't be measured.

[cousin_joe]

Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Japan or Russia attacks an original Red or Orange colored territory respectively, the Treaty is now void and the defender places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
This treaty is deemed void under the following conditions:
1. Russia/Japan attacks Japan/Russian-owned land territory
2. Russia/Japan moves units into a Friendly-owned original Orange/Red colored territory
3.Russia/Japan attacks Japanese/Russian Naval Units



Hey, I was gonna do this, but you beat me to it. Thanks :)

[Stephen]

I dont like them either how they stand now. Japs can't be spending money on subs. With 7allied pieces getting dropped in asia a turn, who is going to buy subs.
Ultimately we are walking a fine line between "I don't think this NA is good from a game-play perspective" and "I don't think this NA fits my game-play".

However, I hold to the argument that Kaitens are taken so infrequently that it ipso facto makes them toast.

[Vollick1979]

The 1@1 doesn't really take into account how many DD's are being used. If you have 6 DD's you can still cripple an opponent with bombardment and oh yeah there is a 1 in 6 chance i'll lose one. Your rule would work well against a single defending infantry because it makes me wonder if i want to risk a DD to bombard. It does very little against large stacks of DD's which will continue to pound away with bombards.


I'm glad the 1@1 to sink loaded transports makes you feel uneasy. That's what it was designed to do... just like an AAGun makes me feel uneasy about sending in my BMBR for an SBR.

I read posts of yours complaining all the time about how good strategy is getting beat by luck. This NA is seriously laced with luck. "Oh no your loaded transport got sunk because I rolled a 1, you just lost 16 IPC's worth of gear!" Compare it with the +1 first round for all land units and limiting bombardments to the number of units. This suggestion is simpler, and places emphasis on strategy not getting a lucky 1.

Who other than you really likes the 1@1 idea joe?

[Vollick1979]

Ultimately we are walking a fine line between "I don't think this NA is good from a game-play perspective" and "I don't think this NA fits my game-play".

However, I hold to the argument that Kaitens are taken so infrequently that it ipso facto makes them toast.

I agree totally with this statement.

I have read before how Japan has to chose whether to go Navy or Army but I think Japan has to try and do both. Now if you do this poorly Japan will end up with a bad army and a bad navy and Japan is in the crapper. But if done properly Japan can have a naval presence and have a effective mainland army. I can never afford to purchase a SS, so in this statement i'm admitting that Kaitens don't fit my game-play. Perhaps someone if they wanted to go heavy Navy would choose Kaitens but again i've never seen it nor heard of it. So if it's the case that Kaitens are simply not being chosen as NA's then Japan is being hamstrung with only 5 viable NA's. Something other than Kaitens please!:D

[cousin_joe]

AW: The problem of over-bombarding can be limited by allowing only as many bombards as land units brought in.

With a 6DD bombard, you're exchanging 6INF who will be killed for sure, for 6 @3 + 6 @1 = 4INF?!?!? This would make Combined Bombardment useless.

All it needs is a simple counter to reduce it's returns. A 1@1 shot does that.

[cousin_joe]

How about this ??? _ i am also looking at this thing as a national advantage, where taking this thing causes problems for the allies like the others do: AK, LDB, PB ... to name three.

Atlantic Wall
--bombardments are limited to an equal number of amphib land units
--Infantry defend at 3 for the first round
--attacking force only does HALF (rounded up) of their hits for the first round

_______________
BTW_ if anyone has heard from me enough about these changes then I will desist. I just thought we could talk openly about these things before CJ finalizes them.

part 1 - makes CB useless
part 3- I don't like the idea of "taking away" hits

[cousin_joe]

I think the prob with +1 is that you end up with arm defending at a 4 which means 2 4s in the first round cost the same as one 4 normally does.

Where's the middle ground... can't find it :) maybe half the defending tanks round down defend at 4? :)

As I've said before... everything defending at 1 is crazy and would totally kill any chance the Allies have of launching a successful D-Day.

Other reasons I don't like the +1 for everything:
-RTL and ARM already have their benefits. AW if for INF only. PB + AW would make tanks broken.
-ARM can move 2 and instantly fortify WEur with a 4 defense
-it encourages less agressive play. RTL and ARM should be on the Eastern Front.

Everything defending at +1 is totally bad from a Gameplay Mechanic perspective and from a combination with other NA perspective.

[cousin_joe]

It's only for one round where tanks defend at 4 Stephen. Plus why shouldn't artillery also get an increase? The increase from 3 to 4 isn't as much as the increase from 2 to 3 and there will be less tanks or artillery defending than infantry so I see the tank/artillery contribution as far less of a factor than the infantry contribution.

Another reason I don't like this +1 on everything...

Imagine taking German 88's + Atlantic Wall. Okay, so RTL goes up +1. INF goes up +1. Then RTL get their opening Fire shot AT 3!!! Half their hits get removed IMMEDIATELY!!! I'll just load up WEur with lots of RTL then.

Ger 88's and AW would be the automatic picks.

Bottom Line: Atlantic Wall should not benefit RTL or ARM in any way

[Vollick1979]

Others seem to think +1 to everything would be ok. Joe you think it's broken? For the life of me I don't see how a moderate increase for one round only could be construed as crazy to game play.

[Vollick1979]

Another reason I don't like this +1 on everything...

Imagine taking German 88's + Atlantic Wall. Okay, so RTL goes up +1. INF goes up +1. Then RTL get their opening Fire shot AT 3!!! Half their hits get removed IMMEDIATELY!!! I'll just load up WEur with lots of RTL then.

Ger 88's and AW would be the automatic picks.

Bottom Line: Atlantic Wall should not benefit RTL or ARM in any way

Fine, load your artillery up in W.Europe. I would love to see 88's sitting in Western Europe and not on the Eastern Front.

This should be the Bottom Line: Atlantic Wall should benefit Germany, and I don't care if RTL or TNKS benefit because of it!

[Vollick1979]

Imagine taking German 88's + Atlantic Wall. Okay, so RTL goes up +1. INF goes up +1. Then RTL get their opening Fire shot AT 3!!! Half their hits get removed IMMEDIATELY!!! I'll just load up WEur with lots of RTL then.


actually joe, all the ART hits would get removed immediately. ;) See this is something pagan would have done if he were here! ;)

[cousin_joe]

actually joe, all the ART hits would get removed immediately. ;) See this is something pagan would have done if he were here! ;)
LOL! :D Okay, you got me... ALL their hits :) What I meant was 50% of the RTL would hit (on average)

[axis_roll]

Can you imagine the new beefed up (+1) AW loaded with units defending against a combined Allied Assault in SZ7?

[Vollick1979]

A +1 AW would make it extremely necessary for UK/USA to get D-Day right, if they fail then Germany can retake; D-Day is lost and AW is still around. I know there is no vote but my vote is for:

+1 to all defending land units for the first round only.
Allied bombardments limited to the number of attacking units.

This would prevent those 1 inf, 6 DD shots, 1 BB shot attacks that are near impossible to defend against.

[cousin_joe]

OK, you asked for a bit more for Atlantic Wall, and here it is...

Atlantic Wall
During any Amphibious Assault against a Gray territory, all your INF and RTL defend on a 3 for the first cycle of combat. Also, Germany gets a single 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot which is fired during the Conduct Opening Fire phase of the land combat, as long as at least one unit is in the territory at the start of land combat. It can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.

-simple enough
-adds more intrinsic value to the Ger 88's NA, esp. relative to Panzerblitz
-maintains the Combined Arms counter
-makes an Atlantic Wall NA pick more viable, as well as strategies to defend WEur (rather than trade)
-tough decision whether to have 88's defend WEur, or to push them East on the offensive.
-RTL were very much part of the Wall and should be included

I didn't stop there though. Another change because of this...

Marines
During an Amphibious Assault, your INF attack at 2, and your RTL at 3 for the first cycle of combat. These INF may be matched 1:1 with a supporting RTL, in which case, their attack would also increase to 3 (for the first cycle only). You may also place one free INF on a Green continental US territory.

-I don't see RTL as being purely artillery units but rather a mix. The RTL here needed a bonus to match the Atlantic Wall RTL bonus.
-Marines needed a bit more of a boost

And finally, just because this one needed a slight boost as well...

Banzai Attacks
Your INF attack at 2 for the first cycle of combat only. There are NO restrictions as to what other units may accompany the attack. You may also place one free INF on a mainland Orange territory.

-if we are dealing with small scale conflicts, the previous restrictions would make sense, but these battles are more theater based and thus RTL or ARM should not be limited.
-if one picks Banzais, they should be buying mostly INF anyway

I will change the wording later (suggestions welcome :) ) but I hope that these changes are to your liking :)

[cousin_joe]

Thought I'd add one more for good measure...

Yamato Class Battleships
Your BBs attack and defend on a 5. This NA includes Bombardment. You may also purchase your 1st battleship at a 5IPC discount (ie. for 15IPC)

The big deterrent here has always been the high cost of BB's, and hence a discount for your 1st BB :)

[axis_roll]

So you took away the +1 inf bonus for a bonzai NA selection?

[cousin_joe]

So you took away the +1 inf bonus for a bonzai NA selection?

I didn't type it out but it's still supposed to be there :) . Previous post edited.

[cousin_joe]

GENERAL:
----------------
Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Russia or Japan attacks an original Orange or Red colored territory respectively, the treaty is considered broken and the defender places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
The following acts will result in the treaty being void rather than broken (no side gets free INF):
1. Russia/Japan attacks Japan/Russian-owned land territory
2. Russia/Japan moves units into a Friendly-owned original Orange/Red colored territory
3. Russia/Japan attacks Japanese/Russian Naval Units

D-Day - on D-Day, all attacking land and sea units must come in through SZ 7. Only loaded UK TRNs can be involved in combat in SZ 7 during the attack. UK DDs and BBs can bombard but only if SZ 7 was empty at the start of US turn.
-If WEur ever becomes controlled by Allies prior to D-Day, Allies can no longer conduct D-Day

Delayed 2nd NA - The 2nd NA may be delayed, but when it is eventually declared, it comes into effect at the end of the turn (not immediately)

Transports - transports may now move out of a hostile SZ, and drop off units into a friendly territory.

Bid for the Axis - the game will now use a straight bid for the Axis. ALL of the bid may be spent on units prior to game start.

RUSSIA:
------------
Lend Lease - increase conversion limit to 12IPC

GERMANY:
-----------------
Afrika Corps - increase to 2INF,1RTL,1ARM
German 88's - may place 1 free RTL on any Gray territory
Atlantic Wall - INF and RTL defend at 3. Free 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot vs. amphibious assault on any Gray territory as long as 1 defending unit. Can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.
Wolfpacks - now comes with one free SUB

UK:
------
Royal Navy - DDs now cost 1IPC less
Radar - may place 1 free AAGun on any Tan territory worth at least 2IPC

JAPAN:
-----------
Naval Advantage - 16 IPC toward Tech (4 free rolls)
Kaitens - now comes with one free SUB
Banzais - may place 1 free INF on any Orange mainland territory. There are NO restrictions as to what may accompany Banzais.
Yamato Battleships - may purchase 1st Battleship for 5IPC less.

USA:
-------
Marines - may place 1 free INF on any Green continental US territory. INF attack at 2, RTL attack at 3. INF may still be suppored 1:1 by RTL and thus attack at 3 also.

[cousin_joe]

Bid for the Axis - the game will now use a straight bid for the Axis. ALL of the bid may be spent on units prior to game start.


This last batch of changes are very pro-Axis and so overall the bids can come down. The place half system artificially inflated the bids which is no longer required. I expect to see bids in the 3-7 IPC range now.

[AxisRoll]

good work on the *** BB, $5 off coupon, Can I use that to get 2 Destroyers? That equals the same $20? :)

[axis_roll]

It is of note that ANY amphibious assault (with or without offshore support) is subjected to the 1 shot at a 1 to sink either a loaded tpt or a DD.

Over the course of a game, this could have significant impact.

[cousin_joe]

It is of note that ANY amphibious assault (with or without offshore support) is subjected to the 1 shot at a 1 to sink either a loaded tpt or a DD.

Over the course of a game, this could have significant impact.

Yes, that single 1@1 shot is more powerful than people generally assume... especially if the Allies DON'T have Combined Arms.

With that said, I felt it was okay to give defending RTL +1 as typically they should be on the front line anyways, not defending WEur. Also, it's a boost to Ger 88's as well by making RTL more useful overall.

Picture a D-Day with Ger 88's, Atlantic Wall, and the upgraded Marines. Now that would make for a very climactic battle :D

[Moderator Sinister]

It is of note that ANY amphibious assault (with or without offshore support) is subjected to the 1 shot at a 1 to sink either a loaded tpt or a DD.

Over the course of a game, this could have significant impact.


This needs to be worked into island warfare in the pacific.

[Stephen]

This is a little late now that it seems everything's bene mostly finalized, but one way to improve AW would be to allow hit units to return fire.

[cousin_joe]

This needs to be worked into island warfare in the pacific.

This is not a bad idea, if the islands had high enough incentives to go after them in the first place. All it would do now is make capturing these islands even less appealing.:(

[Vollick1979]

Bottom Line: Atlantic Wall should not benefit RTL or ARM in any way

&

Atlantic Wall
During any Amphibious Assault against a Gray territory, all your INF and RTL defend on a 3 for the first cycle of combat. Also, Germany gets a single 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot which is fired during the Conduct Opening Fire phase of the land combat, as long as at least one unit is in the territory at the start of land combat. It can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.

Regardless of the flip-flop, for which doesn't bother me at all for i've always had a soft place in my heart for flip-floppers, ;) the Atlantic Wall NA still has that ugly 1@1 coastal defense shot. This adds tremendous amounts of luck into the game. Imagine loading up a transport with an infantry and a tank and amphibiously assulting a single infantry in Algeria. On a 1 that transport is sunk along with all those units. It looks like Combined Arms is going to be a necessity to deal with this NA. No sir i don't like it all.

Put it to a vote Joe.

[axis_roll]

Pagan says the 1@1 is too little to worry about
Vollick says 1@1 is too much.
CJ says its just right, even without adding the +1 modifier to 88s.(art)

I think the 1@1 plus the inf and art at 3 (first round) is juuuuussssssstttt right.

This will indeed make me strongly consider AW in the future.

[newaxis]

Sorry I haven't posted sooner, I've had jury duty all week. I humbly ask that you consider some of my ideas. I'm contributing to the discussion here; any changes would of course have to be balanced by other changes.

Amphibous assaults in general-Capping the number of support shots at the number of land units being transported amphibiously into battle. So if you transport 1 inf and have 6 DDs with combined arms, you get 1 shot.

Germany: Atlantic Wall-Let Germany build some combination of artillery, tanks, AA guns, and fighters in Western Europe, in addition to Inf and artillery defending on a 3. The Germans did put captured French factories to use, after all. Being able to produce some units directly into WE, (but not infantry) would really help to defend it.

Wolfpacks- Let Germany build subs from WE. Germany built supply stations for its subs so that subs did not have to sail all the way to Germanry. This may sound radical, but it really does make sense. Putting a reasonable cap on this of 2 subs per turn would be sufficient to prevent abuse. Being able to build subs from WE would actualy encourage Germanry to make a bid for the Atlantic for a time, as well as keep the Allies honest in the late game with their transports (making the allies defend their transports)

New NA for Germany: Increased Collaboration During your mobilize units phase, place an IC on Western Europe. This would be fun, give the Allies another target to bomb (frankly it is unbelievable that the Allies can't SBR occupied France to harm Germany), and prevent a first turn onslaught (by letting Germanry start the game with the IC). I have playtested this variant a few times, and it opens up some possibilities with Germany without being too powerful.

LDB- Limit the cancelling factor of defending planes on a 1 for 1 basis, i.e. each defending plane cancels the first round advantage for only 1 attacking fighter, not all of them.

Panzerblitz-State that the free NCM must be to a territory that you controlled at the start of your turn. This prevents some tanks from moving 3 spaces forward (Germanry to Ukraine, then ncm to Caucasas or West Russia), and prevents some weird movements into Russia. Keeps the NA fairly simple.

German 88's- Allow Germany to buy AA guns at 4 IPCs. Since the 88s were used for AA and land, it makes sense. Yes, this is an extremely minor benefit. If you really want to spice things up, let any artillery serve as an AA gun on defence only! If an artillery is used as an AA gun, it doesn't get its normal attack/support. Approximately 44% of all the 88's were used for AA purposes. (I lost my link to my source for that, sorry.) So the German player would declare before combat began if an 88 was going to serve as an aa gun and then treat it as such for rolling purposes (1 round only, defends on a 1), but could still be chosen as a casualty. Stocking 1 art in every territory would deter some Allied fighter attacks, I assure you.

Japan
Change the #$$%^ name of naval advantage, or make the tech be a naval tech. I have seen the "naval advantage" used to research rockets and heavy bombers. End this insanity.

D-day
If the Allies conquer WE without using D-day (i.e. the Germans don't defend it b/c of the restriction about losing D-day), then the French rally and fight. Place 2 Inf in WE under the control of the liberating allied nation. This may be used once per game, and of course the ability to declare D-day is lost as well. This gives the Germans a small incentive to prevent a walk-in, which is one of the most unbelievable scenarios about A&A.

[Vollick1979]

Well the 1@1 is going to be too little except for when it sinks your tranny trying to amphibiously assult Algeria. Pagan's right, you can't count on a 1@1 so it shouldn't really affect your decision as whether to take it or not. With beefed up Marines (good call) AW looks to be a home run/strike out NA when all you need is a single up the middle or a double down the left field line! :D

[newaxis]

I agree with Vollick, there is way too much riding on a 1 or less coastal defense roll.

On another note, please formally note that if you buy 6 rolls, you get the technology, and allow 5:1 as a valid combo. There are some rare circumstances in which you might go for 5 rolls instead of 4 or 6, so Enhanced should account for that. Don't force players to do 4 and 6; allow them to go 5 and 1. Enhanced is about options, so this should be a no-brainer.

[Vollick1979]

I like some of your suggestions newaxis.

Instead of placing a free sub with wolfpacks allow subs to be built in sz 6 or 7 (maximum of 2 subs).

I like the idea of capping the number of bombards to the number of units being used in the amphibious assult.

I wouldn't really purchase artillery or tanks or fighters for W.Europe unless I was preparing for an Invasion of England. Personally I think W. Europe should start with an IC, even though it may not have produced all that much war material, Germany did and it's just a short train ride.

I like Panzerblitz the way it is, otherwise PB wouldn't work in Africa and would pretty much mean the tanks had one place to go: back where they came from. :(

I don't think you can use Naval Advantage for a major tech. I'm 99% sure that was a rule at one time i'm not sure if it was dropped or not.

I would have no problem with the 2 free French Forces.

[Vollick1979]

I agree with Vollick, there is way too much riding on a 1 or less coastal defense roll.

On another note, please formally note that if you buy 6 rolls, you get the technology, and allow 5:1 as a valid combo. There are some rare circumstances in which you might go for 5 rolls instead of 4 or 6, so Enhanced should account for that. Don't force players to do 4 and 6; allow them to go 5 and 1. Enhanced is about options, so this should be a no-brainer.

I agree but, Joe has already determined that's an unneccesary change and needlessly complex. :rolleyes:

[newaxis]

If the Germans are allowed to build subs in WE, then they should be able to build in SZ 13 as well. The French have some major southern ports. The reason that starting with the IC is a problem is that 1) too many A&A players are way too conservative and automatically reject the idea and 2) An IC in WE would allow Germanry to build a navy in SZ 6 or 7 first turn, which is a problem, especially in Enhanced.

That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing 7 IPC German subs with Wolfpacks in addition to the ability to produce in WE.

I disagree with you on Panzerblitz however. Sure, it hampers Africa a little bit, but there is some craziness with PB right now. If I am Russia, I should be motivated to attack and not stack up. Letting tanks from Germany attack Ukraine and to another territory that Germany took in the same turn is a problem. Tanks should not be able to move 3 spaces forward! I have used this exploit a few times in my games, and I felt a little cheap moving a stack of 9 tanks up to West Russia or Caucasas in one turn, considering that I took WR or Cau the same turn. Just as German 88's moving 2 during NCM is a problem, tanks moving 3 spaces is as well.

[Vollick1979]

Yes i know all about the problems with a W.Europe IC. Still though can't a boy dream? ;)

PB is good, I won't deny it but remove the ability to NCM into a just captured territory PB's become merely ok. It allows a lot more flexibility which Germany needs.

[Stephen]

The only argument I could see in favour of restricting PB ncm to territories owned at the beginning of the turn is that PB makes tanks better than fighters, since fighters have that limitation.
I can't say I think it should work, but PB is one of the best NAs and the goal should be to make NA selection tough, and not a given.

[DocD]

GENERAL:
----------------
Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Russia or Japan attacks an original Orange or Red colored territory respectively, the treaty is considered broken and the defender places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
The following acts will result in the treaty being void rather than broken (no side gets free INF):
1. Russia/Japan attacks Japan/Russian-owned land territory
2. Russia/Japan moves units into a Friendly-owned original Orange/Red colored territory
3. Russia/Japan attacks Japanese/Russian Naval Units
CJ, you are a smart man...so I am just in awe as to how stupid this is. LOOK. The whole purpose of the non-aggression treaty is to curb the wayward attacks of Japan against Russia and vice versa. If you void the treaty because somebody attacks somebody's units, you have effectively given them an incentive. You are forcing Japan and Russia to go at blows just so they can get into each other's territory for free! Man, I can't believe I am the only one that sees this. All the hell with it.

Atlantic Wall - INF and RTL defend at 3. Free 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot vs. amphibious assault on any Gray territory as long as 1 defending unit. Can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.This is a nice boost to AW. I would consider it myself now in a game. BUT....I have to agree with Vollick. the 1@1 is as dicey as hell. It will either be a total waste or a superweapon. Would have to see how playtests come out before a final vote on this one could be made.

Kaitens - now comes with one free SUB Are kaitens still limited to two a turn? Put me in the "get rid of Kaitens" group.
Banzais - may place 1 free INF on any Orange mainland territory. There are NO restrictions as to what may accompany Banzais.
Yamato Battleships - may purchase 1st Battleship for 5IPC less. Finally, something good for Japan...thanks.

[Stephen]

CJ, you are a smart man...so I am just in awe as to how stupid this is. LOOK. The whole purpose of the non-aggression treaty is to curb the wayward attacks of Japan against Russia and vice versa. If you void the treaty because somebody attacks somebody's units, you have effectively given them an incentive. You are forcing Japan and Russia to go at blows just so they can get into each other's territory for free! Man, I can't believe I am the only one that sees this. All the hell with it.
Well done DocD! Not only did you discover this weakness, but our main complaint, yours and mine together (united we stand), is that the biggest problem is not Russian aggression in Asia but Russian-assisted defense in Asia. When will they learn? :)

Are kaitens still limited to two a turn? Put me in the "get rid of Kaitens" group.
You, me, Vollick.... there's (allegedly) power in numbers! :D

[Vollick1979]

Doc you're not the only one, if you allow one side to void the treaty it will be done almost every time simply to prevent one side from getting the 4 infantry.

AW as CJ proposed is dicey and that's not really my cup of tea (On a side note i'm not sure what my cup of tea would be).

I like the new Yamato BB's but I can't see how anyone takes Kaitens over Yamato's. Japan starts with 2, the first one is cheap, essentially Yamato's rule the seas. Can you imagine 3 BB's in a fleet? Wowza!!!

I would like the Banzais without the free Infantry in an orange mainland territory but the one inf isn't that big of deal.

I think we all know my position on Kaitens. :D

[cousin_joe]

&


Regardless of the flip-flop, for which doesn't bother me at all for i've always had a soft place in my heart for flip-floppers, the Atlantic Wall NA still has that ugly 1@1 coastal defense shot. This adds tremendous amounts of luck into the game. Imagine loading up a transport with an infantry and a tank and amphibiously assulting a single infantry in Algeria. On a 1 that transport is sunk along with all those units. It looks like Combined Arms is going to be a necessity to deal with this NA. No sir i don't like it all.

Put it to a vote Joe.

Tremendous amounts of luck??? :) Please :rolleyes: :D

It's all about risk management. Take an SBR for example. No one forces you to SBR, that's your choice. Now, if you do, you take a 1/6 risk of losing your BMBR.

With the example you mention, I typically leave Algeria empty anyways as 1 single INF there doesn't do much good. With AW, I might consider leaving the INF there for the shot, but not if I need him for Africa.

Germany would be foolish to take AW turn 1, so that's a free shot to land UK/US 1.

What Allies should do if they're planning Torch landings, is get it right the first time (in force) so they are not having to retake.

One can always come in via Brazil or IC in SAfr. This would encourage some different strats, rather than the typical Operation Torch.

AW won't be present in every game

Losing a TRN is not going to destroy the entire Allied game plan in the Atlantic

It's a single shot

All these factors show that the 1@1 shot is not as bad as you point it out to be.

Bottom Line: You make the decision here. You don't have to bombard, you can always drop off somewhere else. Or just go in once and take in force. If you really don't want to risk your loaded TRN's then take Combnied Arms.

[cousin_joe]

Pagan says the 1@1 is too little to worry about
Vollick says 1@1 is too much.
CJ says its just right, even without adding the +1 modifier to 88s.(art)

I think the 1@1 plus the inf and art at 3 (first round) is juuuuussssssstttt right.

This will indeed make me strongly consider AW in the future.

Thanks axis_roll. That holds a lot of weight coming from one of Enhanced's top players. :)

[cousin_joe]

PB is good, I won't deny it but remove the ability to NCM into a just captured territory PB's become merely ok. It allows a lot more flexibility which Germany needs.

Well at least we agree on something :)

[Vollick1979]

Oh Joe we agree on about 95% of things. It's just the other 5% where we don't agree and don't agree at all!

[cousin_joe]

CJ, you are a smart man...so I am just in awe as to how stupid this is. LOOK. The whole purpose of the non-aggression treaty is to curb the wayward attacks of Japan against Russia and vice versa. If you void the treaty because somebody attacks somebody's units, you have effectively given them an incentive. You are forcing Japan and Russia to go at blows just so they can get into each other's territory for free! Man, I can't believe I am the only one that sees this. All the hell with it.

Actually, you may have a point here :)
I just thought about a Japanese FTR landing on German-OWNED Karelia and breaking the treaty. OK, how about this...

Attacking original enemy territory = 4 free INF for defender in that territory
Committing Acts 1-3 (attacking ships, moving in if allies took, attacking enemy in non-original territory) = 2 free INF for defender in the capital (Moscow/Tokyo)

Alternately though, we can look at having the moving in rule just apply to INF... thoughts?



This is a nice boost to AW. I would consider it myself now in a game. BUT....I have to agree with Vollick. the 1@1 is as dicey as hell. It will either be a total waste or a superweapon. Would have to see how playtests come out before a final vote on this one could be made.

Consider it a deterrent, like an AAGun. If you want to risk it, risk it. If not, don't. The Allies lots of trannies (and possibly DDs) in the Atlantic anyways, so one loss is not that big of a deal. Look at losing a BMBR... it's not necessarily the end of the world.


Are kaitens still limited to two a turn? Put me in the "get rid of Kaitens" group. Finally, something good for Japan...thanks.

[axis_roll]

The whole purpose of the non-aggression treaty is to curb the wayward attacks of Japan against Russia and vice versa. If you void the treaty because somebody attacks somebody's units, you have effectively given them an incentive. You are forcing Japan and Russia to go at blows just so they can get into each other's territory for free!

Lets look at the proposed rules again closely. Remember we all thought the fact that USSR supporting India/Sinkiang/China is bad...

Where does one side benefit if I force the other side to attack me?

1. Russia/Japan attacks Japan/Russian-owned land territory
Treaty void. no units either side. When will this happen?
Japan attacking... where? Other than original red... I don't see it.

2. Russia/Japan moves units into a Friendly-owned original Orange/Red colored territory
Treaty void. no units either side. When will this happen?
Ah yes! just what we want to stop... USSR on R2. America attacks a weakly taken China on US1. 2 US inf attack 1 *** inf. USA wins with 2 inf. R2, USSR moves 4 inf from sinkiang into China.... oh that's disaster for Japan.
bad bad bad! Too much for Japan to take in Asia.
Treaty void. Now Russia does not have the 4 free inf to cover their ass in Buryatia/soviet far east.

What move would Japan ever be forced to do to just so they can get into USSR territory for free? I dont see it. PLEASE show me an example.

Substitute USSR for Japan in the above sentence (DocD's premise, mind you) and show me an example for that.

[cousin_joe]

Hey roll, and everyone else, how would you feel about the following...

Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Russia or Japan attack an original Orange or Red colored territory respectively, the treaty is considered broken and the defender places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.

If any of the following happen:
1. Russia/Japan attacks Japan/Russian-owned land territory
2. Russia/Japan moves units into a Friendly-owned original Orange/Red colored territory
3. Russia/Japan attacks Japanese/Russian Naval Units
the treaty is considered void and the infringed upon party places 2 free INF in their capital.

I chose capital (rather than adjacent territory) as this is the simplest and shouldn't interfere with other attacks, or have immediate ramifications the following turn. Overall, the offending party is still punished for their transgression, though not as harshly as a direct attack on the other treaty member's home soil.

[axis_roll]

GENERAL:
Atlantic Wall - INF and RTL defend at 3. Free 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot vs. amphibious assault on any Gray territory as long as 1 defending unit. Can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.

I think you need to add "on the first cycle of combat" to the AW definition

[newaxis]

Any comments on my suggestions on page 15?

[Stephen]

Page 15? I only have 4 pages in this thread.
Except my comments push it to page 5 :)

[DocD]

Lets look at the proposed rules again closely. Remember we all thought the fact that USSR supporting India/Sinkiang/China is bad...

Where does one side benefit if I force the other side to attack me?

1. Russia/Japan attacks Japan/Russian-owned land territory
Treaty void. no units either side. When will this happen?
Japan attacking... where? Other than original red... I don't see it.
India, china, seazone61, Sinkiang, Persia, etc, etc.
2. Russia/Japan moves units into a Friendly-owned original Orange/Red colored territory
Treaty void. no units either side. When will this happen?
Ah yes! just what we want to stop... USSR on R2. America attacks a weakly taken China on US1. 2 US inf attack 1 *** inf. USA wins with 2 inf. R2, USSR moves 4 inf from sinkiang into China.... oh that's disaster for Japan.
bad bad bad! Too much for Japan to take in Asia.
Treaty void. Now Russia does not have the 4 free inf to cover their ass in Buryatia/soviet far east.

What move would Japan ever be forced to do to just so they can get into USSR territory for free? I dont see it. PLEASE show me an example.

Substitute USSR for Japan in the above sentence (DocD's premise, mind you) and show me an example for that.
Here's a typical example roll. Russia moves a tank into India on turn one. Is this capable? You bet your axis it is. Russia concentrates INF in bury. Brings fighter to Sinkiang. Any attack on India by Japan leaves Russia the option of invading Manchuria....maybe with Allied help, definitely with Allied support. Not something too far-fetch to imagine in my book.

[Vollick1979]

Well I liked the Non-Aggression pact as it was before. Let Russia and Japan fight in China and Sinkiang with no effect on the treaty but with the provision that if Russian/Japanese units are present in an Orange/Red Territory then Japan/Russia may place 2 infantry in an adjacent Orange/Red territory or Tokyo/Moscow.

These are the likely outcomes:
1. Russia attacks Man/Kwa/FIC. Result: Japan gets 4 infantry in that territory.
2. Russia occupies a UK/ISA captured Man/Kwa/FIC. Result: Japan places 2 infantry in an adjacent yellow territory or the Capital.
3. Japan attacks a red territory. Result: Russi gets 4 infantry in that territory.

There would have to be some provisions regarding Naval combat and how that would be handled but this is ideally what i'd like to see.

[DocD]

I won't have to beat you with the Sense Stick.:)Actually, you may have a point here :)
I just thought about a Japanese FTR landing on German-OWNED Karelia and breaking the treaty. OK, how about this...

Attacking original enemy territory = 4 free INF for defender in that territory
Committing Acts 1-3 (attacking ships, moving in if allies took, attacking enemy in non-original territory) = 2 free INF for defender in the capital (Moscow/Tokyo)

Alternately though, we can look at having the moving in rule just apply to INF... thoughts?
This is a move in the right direction, but I think Vollick has something more in line with my line of thinking.


Consider it a deterrent, like an AAGun. If you want to risk it, risk it. If not, don't. The Allies lots of trannies (and possibly DDs) in the Atlantic anyways, so one loss is not that big of a deal. Look at losing a BMBR... it's not necessarily the end of the world.I agree with you here to some extent. I would like to see how playtests play out though.

[DocD]

Well I liked the Non-Aggression pact as it was before. Let Russia and Japan fight in China and Sinkiang with no effect on the treaty but with the provision that if Russian/Japanese units are present in an Orange/Red Territory then Japan/Russia may place 2 infantry in an adjacent Orange/Red territory or Tokyo/Moscow.

These are the likely outcomes:
1. Russia attacks Man/Kwa/FIC. Result: Japan gets 4 infantry in that territory.
2. Russia occupies a UK/ISA captured Man/Kwa/FIC. Result: Japan places 2 infantry in an adjacent yellow territory or the Capital.
3. Japan attacks a red territory. Result: Russi gets 4 infantry in that territory.

There would have to be some provisions regarding Naval combat and how that would be handled but this is ideally what i'd like to see.
This is more like what I was thinking. The 2 inf should be placed in a capital for the best possible compromise.

Russia pays some penalty for garrisoning Allied territory. A one time placement of two inf placed in Japan specifically would not break the game IMO. Russia and Japan would still be free to fight each other in other people's territory. But a true invasion still brings about the 4 inf bonus.

[Vollick1979]

Russia paying a penalty to garrison allied territory isn't what I had in mind. It's standard for Russia to garrison in allied territory. It's a rule that would change major dynamics. A Russian tank in persia ---> Japan gets two infanty? I don't like that.

Yes you're right, CJ the AW proposal is a lot like SBRing and AA guns. I don't think this is a good thing as it's a win/lose or a lose/win situation. There is no middle ground. :(

[DocD]

Russia paying a penalty to garrison allied territory isn't what I had in mind. It's standard for Russia to garrison in allied territory. It's a rule that would change major dynamics. A Russian tank in persia ---> Japan gets two infanty? I don't like that.

Yes you're right, CJ the AW proposal is a lot like SBRing and AA guns. I don't think this is a good thing as it's a win/lose or a lose/win situation. There is no middle ground. :(
Yes you are right Vollick. I understand what you are saying. US in Man/Kwang/FIC and Russia moving troops in is what I meant also.

[Vollick1979]

New Standard Rule: You can only bombard with up to the number of attacking land units (that came via transport).

New Atlantic Wall NA Proposal: All land units when defending from an amphibious assult defend at +1. In addition place 1 inf in both Western Europe and Norway during the mobilize new units phase of your turn.

The new standard rule just makes sense (it always has) and this AW is really far simpler than the 1@1 proposal.

[Stephen]

New Standard Rule: You can only bombard with up to the number of attacking land units (that came via transport).
The new standard rule just makes sense (it always has) and this AW is really far simpler than the 1@1 proposal.
I wouldn't limit bombards to the number of transported units... just land units in general, with the usual restriction that at least one has to be transported.

This rule makes sense for AARe. This rule was unnecessary in AH and LHTR because CB was seen as the worst tech, the one noone went for (hence its evolution to Combined Arms). BBS were expensive and limited, hence we didn't have mounds of BBs bombarding.

In AARe CA is taken and games do see more bombardings DDs. CA should have a positive effect by encouraging people to take this tech, but it shouldn't need an NA to counter this aspect of it (picking off defenders while only risking 1 inf).

[Vollick1979]

Well i can see times when 1 infantry will be brought via transport to India and a whole slew of Infantry march into India from FIC. Why should Japan get 2 or more bombardment shots?

If it's for simplicity I could agree to that but I don't see it being that hard of a rule to understand.

[axis_roll]

Well i can see times when 1 infantry will be brought via transport to India and a whole slew of Infantry march into India from FIC. Why should Japan get 2 or more bombardment shots?

If it's for simplicity I could agree to that but I don't see it being that hard of a rule to understand.
I think the 1 inf and several offshores is a viable strategy. Why limit this? I am strongly against this idea of limiting UNLESS it's part of AW.

Japan will die if they can not use their navy to work the coast.

[newaxis]

The reasons to limit the bombardment are that A) bombardment is more useful than it should be since casulties don't get to strike back, B) multiple bombardments encourage a strafing that is in essence an economic attack. i.e. If the Allies bombard WE turn after turn with 1 inf invading while the rest go to Norway, then combined arms has become an economic attack. Ordering 1 inf division to attack fortress europe turn after turn just to get bombardment shots is cheesy. I can appreciate BB bombardment to help justify their high cost, but the DD bombardment is a little cheeky. Also, if the UK garrisons India, then Japan can strafe it with its navy, so the Allies have a similiar situation.

[newaxis]

Hey cousin joe, you do mean to limit the new proposed +1 on defence with AW to the first round only, right?

[axis_roll]

Hey cousin joe, you do mean to limit the new proposed +1 on defence with AW to the first round only, right?
I believe you are correct newaxis... 1st round only

[Vollick1979]

I think the 1 inf and several offshores is a viable strategy. Why limit this? I am strongly against this idea of limiting UNLESS it's part of AW.

Japan will die if they can not use their navy to work the coast.

Sure its a viable strategy but so was going for HB in second edition and SBRing Germany to its less than spectacular demise! Just because something is viable doesn't mean it should exist! I just agree with newaxis's assessment that multiple DD's and BB's bombarding with a single infantry is just an economic attack, with much higher payoffs than SBRing a territory that kills units (which are more valuable) instead of IPC's. It should be a standard rule.

With a restriction in place Japan can still work the coast, just not as an economic attack.

[axis_roll]

The reasons to limit the bombardment are that A) bombardment is more useful than it should be since casulties don't get to strike back, B) multiple bombardments encourage a strafing that is in essence an economic attack. i.e. If the Allies bombard WE turn after turn with 1 inf invading while the rest go to Norway, then combined arms has become an economic attack. Ordering 1 inf division to attack fortress europe turn after turn just to get bombardment shots is cheesy. I can appreciate BB bombardment to help justify their high cost, but the DD bombardment is a little cheeky. Also, if the UK garrisons India, then Japan can strafe it with its navy, so the Allies have a similiar situation.
You speak like it's EASY to do this.

This strategy can be costly. $20 min for the combined arms tech and then $10 each for the DDs. I see an outlay cost of $40 min....

I don't like being able to say "the rules do not allow this strategy"

I agree with CJ and suggests that there be a counter to a strategy. Atlantic Wall (with the 1@1 IS that counter to the offshore bombardment)

[Vollick1979]

You speak like it's EASY to do this.

This strategy can be costly. $20 min for the combined arms tech and then $10 each for the DDs. I see an outlay cost of $40 min....

I don't like being able to say "the rules do not allow this strategy"

I agree with CJ and suggests that there be a counter to a strategy. Atlantic Wall (with the 1@1 IS that counter to the offshore bombardment)

Isn't CA a minor tech? So it's a minimum of 16 but the average is slightly less than 20. So for the price of 2 DD's, you gain a tech that can do 1.5 IPC's worth of damage in units per destroyer per turn. This isn't even considering the benefit the BB's get with the CA tech. I don't see how you can say the outlay cost is 40 IPC's, but again this is me.

The rules don't allow a lot of different strategies. The OOTB rules allowed for nearly unlimited SBRing of IC's but this was deemed a bad rule and limits were placed on it. I'm proposing similar limits be placed on Bombardment.

The AW NA that CJ proposed doesn't deal with the situation in the Pacific. It will also not stop massive bombardments! If i have a 1 in 6 chance of losing a DD regardless of whether I bombard with 1 DD or 6 DD i'm always going to bombard with 6 DD. The economic incentive is still there for these types of attacks. I don't know how clearer I can make this point. AW NA doesn't not counter CA tech!!!

[axis_roll]

If i have a 1 in 6 chance of losing a DD regardless of whether I bombard with 1 DD or 6 DD i'm always going to bombard with 6 DD. The economic incentive is still there for these types of attacks

1 in 6 is enough for many people to not risk their bombers.

DD's are $4 cheaper, granted....

somehow I just don't see that combined arms and DD offfshores are going to be the game breaking strat everyone is saying they are...I have only seen this once for the alllies, and only in response to a sub heavy germany. If it's such a great strat, why is it not run more often?

There are far too many other needs to be able to afford to buy 6 DDs.

Japan may have the navy to do this, but she will certainly be inf poor in asia if she does.... so it's NEEDED for Japan.

[AxisRoll]

The whole purpose of the non-aggression treaty is to curb the wayward attacks of Japan against Russia and vice versa. If you void the treaty because somebody attacks somebody's units, you have effectively given them an incentive.

a_r and I did a 3.0 FTF game last night. R2 they took China and voided the treaty. Then R3, they can walk into manchuria without issue.

I think the people who is attacked should decide if they want to keep the treaty or not. But The aggressor still voids the treaty.

[AxisRoll]

I am in the get rid of katiens group 2. But i am a page back, catching up.

[AxisRoll]

For Weapons, I would like to see any combination of 6 dice to gaurentee it within 3 rds. Min 2 Dice.

2 / rd for 3 rds.
3 / rd 2 rds.
4 / 2 rd 2rds
5 / 1 rd 2rds
6 / 0 1rd

[AxisRoll]

Dont limit off shores.. again, limits are like laws, and 2 many laws is bad.

[axis_roll]

For Weapons, I would like to see any combination of 6 dice to gaurentee it within 3 rds. Min 2 Dice.

2 / rd for 3 rds.
3 / rd 2 rds.
4 / 2 rd 2rds
5 / 1 rd 2rds
6 / 0 1rd
no $8 weapons!

I like 4:2.

you can certainy add 5:1 to that mix
so it would be 4:2, or 5:1, or 6:0

[axis_roll]

The whole purpose of the non-aggression treaty is to curb the wayward attacks of Japan against Russia and vice versa. If you void the treaty because somebody attacks somebody's units, you have effectively given them an incentive.

a_r and I did a 3.0 FTF game last night. R2 they took China and voided the treaty. Then R3, they can walk into manchuria without issue.

I think the people who is attacked should decide if they want to keep the treaty or not. But The aggressor still voids the treaty.
So based on our game from last night, how would you fix the rule?

I think it worked out just fine the way it's worded right now and what happened in the game. Russia when voiding the treaty is LOSING something... the chance to get 4 free inf. There IS a penalty for voiding the treaty.

[Caractacus]

I disagree with Axis Roll over the limits to bombardment - we count Art and Inf, here we count Dsts and Inf. Makes sense.

But most of all, as well as preventing the horriffic 'strafing' of coastal territories, this restriction fits beautifully with reality - the more troops the amphibious invasion brings to land, the more the defender brings up troops to defend- thus coming into range. even the Warspite only had a range of some twenty-five mile (forty km) or so - there's no way you can shell the whole of France as such... But if I bring a lot of troops to land, the defenders will rush to hold me at the coast...then I can fire at them...

[axis_roll]

I disagree with Axis Roll over the limits to bombardment - we count Art and Inf, here we count Dsts and Inf. Makes sense.

But most of all, as well as preventing the horriffic 'strafing' of coastal territories, this restriction fits beautifully with reality - the more troops the amphibious invasion brings to land, the more the defender brings up troops to defend- thus coming into range. even the Warspite only had a range of some twenty-five mile (forty km) or so - there's no way you can shell the whole of France as such... But if I bring a lot of troops to land, the defenders will rush to hold me at the coast...then I can fire at them...
I respect your opinion. Without checks and balances, optimal strategies would be identified and always used (RE:IPM and the march to Moscow in antiquated A&A games).

Thus far in my 30+ A&ARevised and A&AR Enhanced games, only once have I seen this stratgy employed. And that was only in response to Germany pumping out the subs.

Yet now, with the increase in strength of the National Advantage of Atlantic Wall, this offshoring stratgy is now held up as the panacea for all the use it.

Is IT? really? Somebody do a cost analysis please. I do not need to. Game play has proven to me that you really can not just buy a fleet of DDs and offshore to a win. Don't forget the hardest to cost justify: OPPORTUNITY COST. spending $16 on the tech itself as well as $40-$60 on DDs kinda precluded getting the transport(s)/inf needed not only to take advantage of these offshores, but to maybe, um, help stop a ravaging Germany from banging on Caucasus, knocking down that door to get to Moscow.
=================================================
regarding offshores and the enemy.

Iwo Jima was pounded for 3+ days. Didn't really help.
but they didn't land troops during those 3 days of pounding.... they waited until AFTER the bombardment.

Unfortunately there is history and there is game play, and most of the time they can sorta reflect on each other... but not always.

[axis_roll]

I don't see the economic aspect to be the huge difference maker. I am more concerned about allowing someone with 1 inf, 2 BB, 4 DD offshores from taking a coastal territory defending with 5 inf.

I proposed to limit the offshore instant deaths (opening fire round casualties) to the number of ground units brought into battle. Remaining offshores casualties are considered hit but get to return fire.

[newaxis]

Let me first say that I don't view massive amounts of support shots as a "game breaker". While I want to limit support shots, I am not making wild claims of brokeness. Nor is going combined arms an automatic game winner. I will make this point however.

The longer a game goes, the better the combined arms bombardment gets.

Of course, the same can be said for many techs, but I think combined arms in the Atlantic really takes its toll over time. In a game that lasts 7+ turns, combined arms bombardment economic strafing attacks are too powerful. By that point, the allies will have a goodly amount of DD in the Atlantic and can start shelling turn after turn. Sure, in a shorter game the CA bombard as a focused strategy will not work. It won't work in every game. However, in a long game, bombardment takes an escalating toll. Heavy bombers at least has a counter in Jet Power, combined arms does not.

So to sum up, lots of shore bombardment is not broken, but A) too good in a long game, B) encourages a chessy tactic of invading with one troop to get multiple shots against all historical experience C) can become a thinly veiled economic attack so therefore D) should be limited.

Eliminating this oversight will enable Germany to better defend WE, and keep Japan from strafing India. In the end, both sides probably benefit about the same. Since shore bombardment effectiveness is already overstated in the game, this fix will both make the game better and more realistic.

I do propose a potential compromise about shore bombardment. Since BB get a benefit from combined arms, and DD get a better detection roll, making DDs bombard at a 2 instead of a 3 is not unreasonable.

[DocD]

I don't see the economic aspect to be the huge difference maker. I am more concerned about allowing someone with 1 inf, 2 BB, 4 DD offshores from taking a coastal territory defending with 5 inf.

I proposed to limit the offshore instant deaths (opening fire round casualties) to the number of ground units brought into battle. Remaining offshores casualties are considered hit but get to return fire.
We don't see eye to eye on alot roll, but here we do.

This is by far the best balance and compromise I've heard. This leaves plenty of incentive to stack up on DDs and bombard, but also makes those 1 inf amphib assaults pretty risky. Good one.

[pagan]

I have been quiet for awhile....

Atlantic Wall --> I like the restriction on supporting shots for this NA ONLY. If this was accepted as a standard rule, and I see the rationale for it, then we are inhibiting Japan.

--allowing Bombard units to return fire...(into the sea i guess since land units arent even on the board at that time)...then this adversley affect Japan.

BUT let me say this: Should the NEED for this Bombard restriction be SHOWN in gameplay, then the change will be made. If some of you people feel that you can do great things with the mass Bombard shots then show it in a game.

--I have complained about the Orange Crush & the money/unit strapped Japanese after I played them many times. Once multiple people started having the same problem, changes were deemed necessary and made. The point here is GamePlay

--The 1@1 costal shot for AW is absurd to me. But that's me. If I'm the allies in the atlantic with a navy large & potent enough to hit WE against the AW NA, then obviously a single TN carrying a SINGLE INf (11 ipcs) isn't going to matter much to me. But again, that's me.

--Yamato Class BBs___ 1/2 off 1st BB purchase, allows more variance in J1 purchases

--Banzai...&...MArines___ Are these +1INF per round NAs? Do RTL work the same way for BAnzai: att2, def2 _with INF+ART: INFatt3, ARTatt2 ?

[Vollick1979]

If limiting bombardments inhibits Japan that much tell me how many times in your games are you bombarding with more naval units than the number of land units you're bringing. Often i'll bring 2 infantry and very rarely am I bombarding with more than 2. Without the CA tech it's extremely unlikely for this to happen in the first place.

If limited bombardment had been included in the OOTB game no one would have a problem with it and i have a sneaky suspicion that a lot would welcome this common sense rule in Enhanced.

[pagan]

MANY times i will bombard Hawaii + Australia with a 1-2 INF (taken from an island) + my 2(3-4) BBs. The hopes are for a quick win without the INF loss. More often than not, you are forced to play your attack with a single infantry gathered from the islands.

MANY games I find myself as Japan faced with utilizing a single DD TE trany and 2+ BBs

These combats often are the only possible solutions for Japanese conquests due to lack of ability to do anything but constantly defend asia, or in the very least the limited funds available to move stuff so far away from the production centers.

Japan's income and forces are so spread out with asia and trying to go pacific that I just don't see Japan as doing everything in all directions in force. It just isnt possible unless japan is left compeltely alone. I don't think my games are special when it comes to Japan.

I see the rationale behind the Bombard restriction: (restricted by the number of amphib units), I just think people should realize that this will affect Japan adversely.

EDIT ---> this would also decrease the viability of Japanese NAs: Yamatos & TokyoExpress

[Vollick1979]

You're right, limiting bombards has an effect on both Tokyo Express and Yamatos and don't forget Naval Advantage. All of which affect Japan in a negative way (you might argue on the extent to which Japan is effected). But to me if the game is balanced with a fair but flawed rule I would prefer to see the rule fixed and then a re-balancing of the game.

[pagan]

I like the bombard restriction for AW only.

I would like to see the need before the change becomes a standard rule.

If people can actually use this bombard thingy in games, and WIN because of it, then a change should be addressed. Otherwise there is no need for the change.

I am against making unecessary changes which adversely affect Japan

[AxisRoll]

I agree. It will hurt Japan as well and that is not the intent of the rule. Prove it with playtesting.

[Vollick1979]

I like the bombard restriction for AW only.

I would like to see the need before the change becomes a standard rule.

If people can actually use this bombard thingy in games, and WIN because of it, then a change should be addressed. Otherwise there is no need for the change.

I am against making unecessary changes which adversely affect Japan

Well what if there was a rule that allowed a single infantry per turn to move through sea zones? Call him a Jesusinfantry or a sad dude in a row boat, it's unlikely that rule would WIN games but that doesn't mean it should be in the rules in the first place. (To the best of my knowledge there is no Jesusinfantry rule in Enhanced ;))

Yes making this change has negative effects on Japan (slight or major depending on your outlook) but other things can be done to relieve the burden on Japan.

You guys are still trying to make the Ptolemic model of the Enhanced work and i'm trying to get you guys to see the Copernican model just makes more sense. Sure you can fiddle with it to make it "fit" but is that what you really want?

[pagan]

I understand the rationale behind the bombard restriction.

I can not be more clear, but to change my lone opinion, what kind of things could be done to help Japan's hinderance here?

I do like your Ptolemy / Copernicus Analogy.

[axis_roll]

Cute Vollick.

But I still think you are trying to change something that has not been proven as broken. Even in the game that I see the combined arms offshores being used against me, I have a strategy to deal with it.

Is it optimal? No.

Will I employ that next game?
Doubtful, as it's not really economically a good move.

As you know, Enhanced games are usually shorter than the LHTR stackfests. Another reason why this is a sub-optimal move.

Please, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Vollick1979]

Please, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I hear that saying all the time, but to me that just doesn't make sense. If something could be improved I say improve it. Now I've read a lot of different suggestions for what bombardment could be. Some have every hit just prevents that unit from taking part in the first round of combat. Some have hit units can return fire (i.e. bombard isn't during opening fire). I've even heard of every hit unit has to retreat if it can.

A basic restriction makes sense and would be easy for everyone to understand. It's a less extreme bombard rule which i think in general is a good thing. Yes Japan would be hurt by it but it seems Japan is getting hurt in a lot of ways lately and replacing Kaitens with something useful would go a long way to solving Japan's woes.

[AxisRoll]

Give Japs an N/A called Panzer Transports. After they drop off, they can move 1 more. Now that's an N/A.

[Vollick1979]

I like Stephen's suggestion of an Armoured Transport NA. An 0/2 transport would be a good alternative to the Tokyo Express NA. A 1/2 transport is appealing but I think it would be too powerful.

[AxisRoll]

I dont think that is 2 much. you are bumping attack and defense up by 1. Or instead of changing attack/def, have it able to carry more cargo.

[Stephen]

A 1/2 transport wouldn't be too much of an offensive threat. You could add a qualifier that it only exercises its attack when attacking with at least one of any other unit type, so you can't take 6 transports and attack something (which would change the game quite a bit), while you can attack something with a ftr and have those cannon-fodder-class units have a minute chance of getting a hit. In Naval battles the kings of the ocean rule the day, so a 1 attack is not too much of a stretch.

The 2 on defence would make a difference though, as ftr VS tranports become more risky, and the overall defence of fleets improves. In later stages of a battle, losing a DD or AC instead of a transport could be feasible given the transports ability to defend at something near half-decent :) (third-decent, Vollick?) :)

For those relying on transports to transport, it would offer a little extra oomph on the defence.

[Vollick1979]

Well again my concern with a 1/2 transport is the fact that muddles the water of predictability and variance. A unit that attacks at 0 or 6 has no variance and then the variance slightly increases as you go down from 5 to 1 with 1 having by far the greatest variance. I would hate to be defending against 4 transports and a BB and having 2 or 3 one's roll.

I would be open to the idea of a 1/2 Fortified transport but only if it were carrying no cargo and revert back to a 0/1 transport if cargo was present.

[DocD]

I'm totally against the idea of armoured transports. This changes a basic game piece into a man-o-war in my book. Transports shuttle...plain and simple. To allow them a better defense value pushes subs and DDs out of the game for Japan.

Not my cup of tea. I like the idea of allowing Japan to shuttle inf only into Manchuria without a transport on the board. It could only be used in NCM. This seems more viable and not as ground breaking as having gun decks on a transport.

[Vollick1979]

A 1/2 piece is hardly a game breaker with the provision it's a 0/1 unit when it has cargo, and it won't push subs out of the game for Japan because subs are never in the game plan for Japan. This rule was proposed back before Banzai allowed every unit to take part without adversely affecting it but still Tokyo Express, Banzai NA combination will be used by many. Armoured transports will give Japan a lot more freedom, freedom to leave a pair of Transports within range of allied air cover. There is nothing i feel infringes on Japan as US/UK fighters and bombers in Buryatia just waiting to pounce on newly purchased Japanese transports... you remember in our game with TeamAR that sub and 2 trannies that sunk to Davy Jones locker in sz 61 now don't you? ;)

[newaxis]

Guys, lets can the idea of an armored transport for now. Feel free to playtest it, but I feel a 1/2 transport is too big of a change for this revision of the Enhanced rules. I personally find the talk of 1/2 transports intriguing since Larry's Advanced is leaning towards the common sense "Can't choose transports as a casualty until warships are dead" rule.

To everyone: Because of the volume of replies, it might be helpful to split off some of the hot topics into new threads/polls. If someone has the time to condense a lot of our discussion down and open a new thread with the various sides explained for some proposed rules changes, that would be great.

To answer pagan about limited bombardment:

Yes, the rule would harm Japan. It also harms the Allies in the Atlantic. One can argue degree all you want. The beauty of this system of revision is that we are making multiple changes. Thus, if a rule harms one nation/side more than the other, other changes will compensate for this.

To Vollick:
Your guy in a rowboat analogy is priceless man.

[Vollick1979]

Why "can" the idea newaxis? Lots of people are not happy with Kaitens and want them gone and the Armoured Transport is one of the best ideas i've heard to take its place. I don't think a 1/2 change is too big for this revision of Enhanced. I think keeping Kaitens, however, would be too little.

[pagan]

Stop messing with Japan.

-harming Japan is a bad idea
-show me the bombard problem in actual gameplay (it ISNT a problem)
-stop supercharging the NAs (we are ALL guilty of this)
-I want BALANCE

[Stephen]

Pagan, what is the point of having an NA that noone ever takes??

[pagan]

...is so no one ever takes it.

(stop the drivel...The clearer path is always Direct.)

[Vollick1979]

Stop messing with Japan.

-harming Japan is a bad idea
-show me the bombard problem in actual gameplay (it ISNT a problem)
-stop supercharging the NAs (we are ALL guilty of this)
-I want BALANCE

Messing with Japan is necessary if Kaitens is going to be removed and replaced with something else.

What if harming Japan brings balance to the game? It seems that those two statement of yours are not always going to comply with each other.

So we could have a game, Pagan. I could say i'm going to show you that Bombardment is a problem and subsequently I get my ass handed to me simply because you have the knowledge of what my initial strategy is going to be. To show this evidence in actual gameplay would have to be done by examining games.

Supercharged NA's already exist! In fact some might argue Japan needs another good NA to help balance things. Armoured Transports would not under my definition be described as supercharged!

[Vollick1979]

Pagan, what is the point of having an NA that noone ever takes??

I don't know either, but apparently the purpose of rhetorical questions is to draw Pagan's ire. ;)

[pagan]

Harming Japan could bring balance to the game.... The odds here are astronomical

Examining the games and the bombardment usefulness.... requires games to examine

supercharged NAs.... the fix is easy! just Supercharge everything! Lets get Exponential! Put aside the idea that we downgrade....naww...no fun there...

[Stephen]

...is so no one ever takes it.

(stop the drivel...The clearer path is always Direct.)
Well, if you just wanted to avoid answering the question, you should have just said so :)

[pagan]

I don't know either, but apparently the purpose of rhetorical questions is to draw Pagan's ire. ;)

rhetorical questions are SO insulting to me. The basic idea of having a train of thought brought slowly to the questioner's agenda makes me want to kill people.

I am NOT speaking out of my rear-end here.
Everything I write (besides my attempts at comedy) is direct and to the point. There is no finagling me around to another view. I SEE the views. I read the posts and I take the stance of the writer. I then go through the idea(s) logically with a knife.

[Stephen]

rhetorical questions are SO insulting to me. The basic idea of having a train of thought brought slowly to the questioner's agenda makes me want to kill people.
I'm sorry Pagan, I'll be more direct.
Stop messing with Japan.
No! :)

[pagan]

Well, if you just wanted to avoid answering the question, you should have just said so :)

i didn't avoid your question.


Premise = your question
Conclusion = my answer follows logically from the premise:)

[Stephen]

Come on Pagan, work with me here... I know how hard it can be to spend time among the herd, but think of everything we can learn from you! :)

[Stephen]

Guys, lets can the idea of an armored transport for now. Feel free to playtest it, but I feel a 1/2 transport is too big of a change for this revision of the Enhanced rules. I personally find the talk of 1/2 transports intriguing since Larry's Advanced is leaning towards the common sense "Can't choose transports as a casualty until warships are dead" rule.
I just wanted to clarify that we're talking of introducing this as a Japanese NA, not as a standard rule.

Now, as for not choosing transport casaulties until warships are dead, this might work for his game but can't work for A&A as it is now. In my mind the only way this will work is wth the introduction of another cheap (6-8 IPC) unit that fights a little better than transports, to soak up hits. Even now, subs are not ideal cannon-fodder, and destroyers (which are really cruisers) are still expensive.

LH's rules look interesting, but the more complicated things get, and I'm inclined to want to play it buy PC. by PC you can have so many variables that make it interesting (Panzer General comes to mind); but you can never have so many in a board game. Anyways, I hope LH creates some interesting rules and I look forward to seeing the finished product!

[cousin_joe]

:) Hey, I'm back and ready to do some serious butt-kicking...

[Vollick1979]

I am NOT speaking out of my rear-end here.
Everything I write (besides my attempts at comedy) is direct and to the point.

It would seem that the first line doesn't quite agree with the second, unless of course the first line is an attempt at comedy which for your sake I hope it isn't because if it were an attempt at comedy I might actually think you were speaking out of your rear end.

You see if everything (of course excepting comedy) you wrote was direct you would have said where you speak out of instead of where you do not speak out of. Leaving such ambiguity in your posts, tsk tsk. I suppose when you wrote "Everything" you didn't really mean everything, it's ok to make silly mistakes pagan we all make them.

[cousin_joe]

1 in 6 is enough for many people to not risk their bombers.

DD's are $4 cheaper, granted....

somehow I just don't see that combined arms and DD offfshores are going to be the game breaking strat everyone is saying they are...I have only seen this once for the alllies, and only in response to a sub heavy germany. If it's such a great strat, why is it not run more often?

There are far too many other needs to be able to afford to buy 6 DDs.

Japan may have the navy to do this, but she will certainly be inf poor in asia if she does.... so it's NEEDED for Japan.

My sentiments exactly...

I would use Combined Arms vs. a Sub strategy, as I get dual benefits, 1st via the anti-SUB component, then the bombards.

If Germany doesn't invest in the SUBs, then Allies try and use Combined Arms, I'd go super-agressive with Germany and knock Russia out before the Allied DDs can be a factor.

[pagan]

Come on Pagan, work with me here... I know how hard it can be to spend time among the herd, but think of everything we can learn from you! :)

Right now I am working on pointing out critical analysis flaws in the Theory of Feline Territorial Demarcation Activity.
--where the basic idea is that cats mark things based not only on instinctual desire but for aethetic purposes as well.

--SOme startling picture renderings of flower pots and so forth. The drawings being upside-down are very good colored shadows of the figures.

--HOWEVER...too many thoughts here utilize anthropromorphism

--other problems are:
----that the idea of obsesive-compulsive play activity by cats, which results in randomized marks of no meaning whatever, needs to be overthrown completely. And the tenets of territorial marking is well explained thusly.

----The instinctive territorial marking behavior__on a side note__could be a systematic-learned-mark, which implies that when a mark is placed this pattern is repeated by the feline. It is a process which is repeated, if not the shape. The basic design should be discernable if a pattern exists. ___IF a pattern exists then obsesive-compulsive play acitvity is being confused with intentional personal markings. This has serious conotations as to human written learned cultural practices for the earliest paintings and writtings.

----another problem I see is that in painting cats will NOT use oil paints. It is presumed that the ammonia salts of drying acrylic paints are close to the cat's urine and so is utilized by the cats.

----The basic ideas of Language are challenged here as well. Unlike the Idiot PhD. that I had as an instrutor thinks..(he and I have had yelling arguements about his stupidity).. language is systematic set of characters (many forms from light to sound) ___ (now on to my argument) --- transferring information from personA to personB requires that the exact information be transferred THIS is communication. Any medium used to transfer that information is the LANGUAGE. It need not be percieved, it need not be of ridgid form, its identity is only known After-the-fact of the transfer (communication). It is NOT necessary for personB to return the information to personA to confirm the sending..that would be a second and separate transmission.
---also the idea that 'I' is not descriptive is ludicris!

[cousin_joe]

You speak like it's EASY to do this.

This strategy can be costly. $20 min for the combined arms tech and then $10 each for the DDs. I see an outlay cost of $40 min....

I don't like being able to say "the rules do not allow this strategy"

I agree with CJ and suggests that there be a counter to a strategy. Atlantic Wall (with the 1@1 IS that counter to the offshore bombardment)

Another good point from axis_roll in response to newaxis saying Combined Arms is an overly powerful economic attack.

Let's look at Combined Arms for the US...

20IPC average startup (4-6 Minor Tech Rolls)
20 IPC for 2 new DD's (in addition to existing DDs)
0IPC for 2 existing DDs
=40IPC for 4 Bombarding DDs doing 6IPC damage/round (2INF) on average

-DD's won't be in position until turn 3-4, and once in position, it will take about 7 rounds to get your investment back... not very cost-effective if you ask me (unless you are getting a benefit by using them to fight SUBs)

-Sure CA DDs do lots of damage, but they take a long time to come into play and are expensive to start up. To weaken them immensely by requiring 1INF/DD is extremely short-sighted and would make Combined Arms worse than useless.

[Vollick1979]

So the King returned only to see his kingdom on the brink of civil war... Rebel dukes have proposed radically new laws to limit the powers of the once god-like king!

His first words:
:) Hi, I'm back

And with those words the entire Kingdom of Enhanced trembled. But the young Duke of Vollick remained steadfast in his statistical beliefs and the wise Earl of Stephen was a trusty warrior with the quill but the King had a dark knight who slaughtered all in his path, and on this cold, dark knight both the Earl and the Duke were in his path. The pagan knight bowed to no god but worshipped the hard cold logic of vulcan like existence, he was devoid of emotion. This pagan knight would dispatch without warning a written tirade that could blind a thousand men with a single post, he was truly a vicious adversary. The kingdom had two venerable twin lords that ruled the independent fiefdom of Axisroll. They were both wise and calm but they failed to see the need for a change and hedged their bets waiting to see which way the wind would blow. The king also had on his side his trusty Witch-Doctor D who vile potions and brews could intoxicate all within Greater Metropolitan Indianapolis. There is a new knight that has recently arrived to this kingdom and it is not known what side he will fall on but he rides in on a crimson tide that can only come from the deep south.

But this only sets the stage for the real story is yet to come. I hope you turn in next week for Tales from the Enhanced Kingdom of Cousin Joe.

[cousin_joe]

The whole purpose of the non-aggression treaty is to curb the wayward attacks of Japan against Russia and vice versa. If you void the treaty because somebody attacks somebody's units, you have effectively given them an incentive.

a_r and I did a 3.0 FTF game last night. R2 they took China and voided the treaty. Then R3, they can walk into manchuria without issue.

I think the people who is attacked should decide if they want to keep the treaty or not. But The aggressor still voids the treaty.

Axis Roll... Japan gets 2 free INF now for Russia's R2 transgression, and loses access to any free INF of their own. The treaty as proposed punishes the agressor now.

[Stephen]

Right now I am working on pointing out critical analysis flaws in the Theory of Feline Territorial Demarcation Activity.
No you aren't! What are you really doing?

[cousin_joe]

I respect your opinion. Without checks and balances, optimal strategies would be identified and always used (RE:IPM and the march to Moscow in antiquated A&A games).

Thus far in my 30+ A&ARevised and A&AR Enhanced games, only once have I seen this stratgy employed. And that was only in response to Germany pumping out the subs.

Yet now, with the increase in strength of the National Advantage of Atlantic Wall, this offshoring stratgy is now held up as the panacea for all the use it.

Is IT? really? Somebody do a cost analysis please. I do not need to. Game play has proven to me that you really can not just buy a fleet of DDs and offshore to a win. Don't forget the hardest to cost justify: OPPORTUNITY COST. spending $16 on the tech itself as well as $40-$60 on DDs kinda precluded getting the transport(s)/inf needed not only to take advantage of these offshores, but to maybe, um, help stop a ravaging Germany from banging on Caucasus, knocking down that door to get to Moscow.
=================================================
regarding offshores and the enemy.

Iwo Jima was pounded for 3+ days. Didn't really help.
but they didn't land troops during those 3 days of pounding.... they waited until AFTER the bombardment.

Unfortunately there is history and there is game play, and most of the time they can sorta reflect on each other... but not always.

Well said axis_roll.

Having used Combined Arms myself firsthand, I am fully aware of the advantages and disadnatages, the primary disadvantage being that a Bombardment strategy is slo, expensive, and takes away from sorely needed INF and TRNs.

I would only use it if Germany went heavy SUBs.

[cousin_joe]

Let me first say that I don't view massive amounts of support shots as a "game breaker". While I want to limit support shots, I am not making wild claims of brokeness. Nor is going combined arms an automatic game winner. I will make this point however.

The longer a game goes, the better the combined arms bombardment gets.

Of course, the same can be said for many techs, but I think combined arms in the Atlantic really takes its toll over time. In a game that lasts 7+ turns, combined arms bombardment economic strafing attacks are too powerful. By that point, the allies will have a goodly amount of DD in the Atlantic and can start shelling turn after turn. Sure, in a shorter game the CA bombard as a focused strategy will not work. It won't work in every game. However, in a long game, bombardment takes an escalating toll. Heavy bombers at least has a counter in Jet Power, combined arms does not.


Well said, newaxis. I agree with your assessment so far :)

So to sum up, lots of shore bombardment is not broken, but A) too good in a long game, B) encourages a chessy tactic of invading with one troop to get multiple shots against all historical experience C) can become a thinly veiled economic attack so therefore D) should be limited.

I actually agree with A-D as well. For A, Germany shouldn't let it be a long game ;) B's a bit debatable. B is a case of Strategy trumping History, otherwise CA is useless. C is true. As far as DD, I would interpret limited as being counterable, which is what 1@1 is all about.


Eliminating this oversight will enable Germany to better defend WE, and keep Japan from strafing India. In the end, both sides probably benefit about the same. Since shore bombardment effectiveness is already overstated in the game, this fix will both make the game better and more realistic.


Game Mechanics requires the ability for the Allies to strafe Germany and Japan to strafe India (much like Game Mechanics require Allies to support Karelia and Russia to support SE Asia). Otherwise WEur and India can theoretically be made impossible to take (since Defense has a big edge on Offense in this game, especially against an amphibious assault)

[pagan]

So the King returned only to see his kingdom on the brink of civil war... Rebel dukes have proposed radically new laws to limit the powers of the once god-like king!
His first words: "Hi I'm back."
And with those words the entire Kingdom of Enhanced trembled.

Man that is really funny Vollick!

The pagan knight bowed to no god but worshipped the hard cold logic of vulcan like existence, he was devoid of emotion.

I actually take this as a compliment. Stoic & Logical.


This pagan knight would dispatch without warning a written tirade that could blind a thousand men with a single post

I know...sometimes I go off on whacko tangents....


And then the AR lords and the Doctor D stuff... pretty good comedy.

[pagan]

No you aren't! What are you really doing?

I'm in my parent's basement drooling over scantily-clad magazines while my mother keeps yelling at my father for being a drunk and worthless nobody.

The ocassional, 'your son is just like you', filters its way through the musty insulation.

My need to speak AT people, allows me to hide the pathetic nature of my life, along with the mutliated animal corpses I have buried down here. The fermentation is blamed on my uncleanliness. My mother is cetain I need more thoracine.

A school drop-out, I live my life inside of TV reruns and d&d books. My characters are wealthy and of vast social status. I only play evil characters.

Disection has become a hobby as of late. I have alwas been intrigued by female genitalia, and I think I will start to save some...

[cousin_joe]

red text is pagan's
BUT let me say this: Should the NEED for this Bombard restriction be SHOWN in gameplay, then the change will be made. If some of you people feel that you can do great things with the mass Bombard shots then show it in a game.

The people saying Mass Bombard is overpowered are "theory guys" rather than "strategy guys". An Allied Combined Bombard strategy is only cost-effective vs. a German Sub strategy. If Allies go Combined Bombard , I'd shift gears with Germany immediately and go right at Russia. With Japan I'd be quick to secure my 1-2 VCs while the Allies monkey around too much in the Atlantic.

--I have complained about the Orange Crush & the money/unit strapped Japanese after I played them many times. Once multiple people started having the same problem, changes were deemed necessary and made. The point here is GamePlay

agreed.

--The 1@1 costal shot for AW is absurd to me. But that's me. If I'm the allies in the atlantic with a navy large & potent enough to hit WE against the AW NA, then obviously a single TN carrying a SINGLE INf (11 ipcs) isn't going to matter much to me. But again, that's me.

True, 1@1 does little vs. a D-Day style attack. It's mainly meant to deter recurrent Bombards (like AAs would deter recurrent SBRs). In that respect, it is a fair deterrent. With no 1@1, a Combined Bombard with 6DDs is automatic. With 1@1, the same Combined Bombard is a cost-benefit analysis.

--Yamato Class BBs___ 1/2 off 1st BB purchase, allows more variance in J1 purchases

too much

--Banzai...&...MArines___ Are these +1INF per round NAs? Do RTL work the same way for BAnzai: att2, def2 _with INF+ART: INFatt3, ARTatt2 ?

That is correct, sir :)

[AxisRoll]

--Banzai...&...MArines___ Are these +1INF per round NAs? Do RTL work the same way for BAnzai: att2, def2 _with INF+ART: INFatt3, ARTatt2 ?

That is correct, sir

IS the above statement true?

[cousin_joe]

IS the above statement true?

Oops, sorry, part 1 is not true, part 2 is true.

ie. These are not +1 INF/ROUND NAs
Banzai INF do attack at 3 if supported by RTL

[cousin_joe]

Atlantic Wall
During any Amphibious Assault against a Gray territory, all your INF and RTL defend on a 3 for the first cycle of combat. Also, if there AT LEAST TWO German units in the Gray territory undergoing Amphibious Assault, Germany gets a single 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot which is fired during the Conduct Opening Fire phase of the land combat. It can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.

I have increased the number of defending units required to TWO in order to get the coastal defense shot. This does a few things...

-This maintains the 1@1 for situations where CA DDs are bombarding territories simply to thin down INF (which it was designed to defend against), but makes the 1@1 less of a factor in territory exchange (eg. WEur, Alg, Fin) as Germany will have to leave more INF exposed to Allied amphibs to get the 1@1 shot, something they may not be prepared to do.

-favors a WEur stack strategy rather than a trade strategy if AW is selected (as you would need to keep a minimum of 2 units in WEur rather than the usual 1)

-this is consistent with the existing mechanic of minimum 2SUB requirement for Wolfpacks

[cousin_joe]

I'm in my parent's basement drooling over scantily-clad magazines while my mother keeps yelling at my father for being a drunk and worthless nobody.

The ocassional, 'your son is just like you', filters its way through the musty insulation.

My need to speak AT people, allows me to hide the pathetic nature of my life, along with the mutliated animal corpses I have buried down here. The fermentation is blamed on my uncleanliness. My mother is cetain I need more thoracine.

A school drop-out, I live my life inside of TV reruns and d&d books. My characters are wealthy and of vast social status. I only play evil characters.

Disection has become a hobby as of late. I have alwas been intrigued by female genitalia, and I think I will start to save some...

Funny stuff, pagan :) One question though, why just scantily clad? Why not spend the few extra bucks and go for all-out full nudity? :D

[pagan]

BAnzai+INF+ART = ~JTDTM

BANZAI all the way to Moscow !!!

hmmm....
Banzai Infantry Push At Moscow
B I P A M

Banzai At Moscow
B A M

or just the battle cry itself...
B A N Z A I !

...there are just so many more which could include Infantry Artillery...

[cousin_joe]

Kaitens will regain the -1IPC. Since Wolfpacks have an economic advantage, so should Kaitens...

Wolfpacks vs. Kaitens
free SUB --- free SUB
Military Adv (+1/0) --- Military Adv (1st Strike/Select Target Suicide Attack)
Economic Adv (Extra CR damage) --- Economic Adv (Cost 1IPC less)

[cousin_joe]

Things you will not see...

Enforced 1:1 ratios of ground units to bombarding ships - CA becomes too weak
A 1/2 Japanese Transport NA - too much Strategic overlap with Tokyo Express
Removal of Kaitens - would eliminate Japan's most Navy-centered NA
Changes to 4:2 - For Why??? It's clearcut right now - 0%, 50%, or 100%?
New NAs - the current ones are strategically diverse, and fit their roles

[cousin_joe]

GENERAL:
----------------
Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Russia or Japan attack an original Orange or Red colored territory respectively, the treaty is considered broken and the defender places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
-If any of the following happen:
1. Russia/Japan attacks Japan/Russian-owned land territory
2. Russia/Japan moves units into a Friendly-owned original Orange/Red colored territory
3. Russia/Japan attacks Japanese/Russian Naval Units
the treaty is considered void and the infringed upon party places 2 free INF in their capital.

D-Day - on D-Day, all attacking land and sea units must come in through SZ 7. Only loaded UK TRNs can be involved in combat in SZ 7 during the attack. UK DDs and BBs can bombard but only if SZ 7 was empty at the start of US turn.
-If WEur ever becomes controlled by Allies prior to D-Day, Allies can no longer conduct D-Day

Delayed 2nd NA - The 2nd NA may be delayed, but when it is eventually declared, it comes into effect at the end of the turn (not immediately)

Transports - transports may now move out of a hostile SZ, and drop off units into a friendly territory.

Bid for the Axis - the game will now use a straight bid for the Axis. ALL of the bid may be spent on units prior to game start.

RUSSIA:
------------
Lend Lease - increase conversion limit to 12IPC

GERMANY:
-----------------
Afrika Corps - increase to 2INF,1RTL,1ARM
German 88's - may place 1 free RTL* on any Gray territory
Atlantic Wall - INF and RTL defend at 3. Free 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot vs. amphibious assault on any Gray territory as long as 2 defending German units present. Can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.
Wolfpacks - now comes with one free SUB*

UK:
------
Royal Navy - DDs now cost 1IPC less
Radar - may place 1 free AAGun* on any Tan territory worth at least 2IPC

JAPAN:
-----------
Naval Advantage - 16 IPC toward Tech (4 free rolls)
Kaitens - now comes with one free SUB*. SUBs now cost 1 IPC less.
Banzais - may place 1 free INF* on any Orange mainland territory. INF may only be supported by aircraft and bombardment. ARM or RTL negate this NA.
Yamato Battleships - may purchase 1st Battleship for 5IPC less.

USA:
-------
Marines - may place 1 free INF* on any Green continental US territory. INF may still be supported 1:1 by RTL and thus attack at 3 1st round.

* = once per game on Place New Units Phase

[pagan]

Good.

Let's start playing with it.

[cousin_joe]

I will post a full Enhanced 3.0 Beta Ruleset tomorrow :)

[newaxis]

Make sure you put the full text in the rules, cousin joe. i.e. Atlantic Wall is first round only, etc. It wouldn't do to have confusion over the omission of a few lines. Thanks.

One last thing: Did you mean to change L Dive Bombers to be negated by defending fighters on a 1 for 1 basis? I thought that was in b/c the other German NAs were beefed up.

[axis_roll]

With these changes, specifically to the non-agression treaty, Japan is back on board with Germany.

In fact, the axis are now more powerful in these rules. Hopefully this doesn't lead to IPC-grabbing last minute/all out grabs of NA's(like to get the magic 84 in the past) or worse: stack fests....

Fiefdom Game testers, Lord a_r commands: PLAY BALL!!

[AxisRoll]

I agree with the fact thinking about rules are not the same until you play it out.

So that is what we need to do. Playtest. Friday night we did 3.0 FTF and playing it out changed our view on the voiding of the treaty.

[Vollick1979]

Things you will not see...

Enforced 1:1 ratios of ground units to bombarding ships - CA becomes too weak
A 1/2 Japanese Transport NA - too much Strategic overlap with Tokyo Express
Removal of Kaitens - would eliminate Japan's most Navy-centered NA
Changes to 4:2 - For Why??? It's clearcut right now - 0%, 50%, or 100%?
New NAs - the current ones are strategically diverse, and fit their roles

I wanted to see everyone of those proposed changes. It's fair to say I pretty much disagree entirely with your assessment of these changes. So I guess i'll just have to see where things go. :(

[DocD]

WoW. Looks like I really knocked some sense into you this time CJ. :D

I like all of the changes. Japan's Banzai seems a bit strong, but if it fights back those stinking Russian hordes, I'm all for it.

Not sure of Royal Navy either. Could get tough in the Atlantic for Germany, but again, I would like to see what the playtests roll out.

[Stephen]

My Comments:
GENERAL:
----------------
Bilateral Nonagression Treaty- If Russia or Japan attack an original Orange or Red colored territory respectively, the treaty is considered broken and the defender places 4 free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked, the defender decides which territory gets the free INF.
-If any of the following happen:
1. Russia/Japan attacks Japan/Russian-owned land territory
2. Russia/Japan moves units into a Friendly-owned original Orange/Red colored territory
3. Russia/Japan attacks Japanese/Russian Naval Units
the treaty is considered void and the infringed upon party places 2 free INF in their capital.
This is an improvement on the old treaty and the beta bi-lateral treaty. I'll be interested to see how it plays out. Atlantic Wall - INF and RTL defend at 3. Free 1 @ 1 coastal defense shot vs. amphibious assault on any Gray territory as long as 2 defending German units present. Can sink DDs or loaded TRNs.

Wolfpacks - now comes with one free SUB*
AW: Does an AA gun count as a unit?
WP: This should make this one more enticing... although I feel already this one is too easily countered by a CB strat, coupled with the fact that money spent on subs (and an NA not used for land) makes it hard for this one to work. I'd almost rather see 7 IPCs without the extra $$ convoy raiding loss as an incentive to get more subs, since max damage is normally done with 4 subs.


UK:
------
Royal Navy - DDs now cost 1IPC less
Radar - may place 1 free AAGun* on any Tan territory worth at least 2IPC
Royal Navy: good change.
Radar: Don't see this causing a significant jump in the popularity of this NA. It will go in either Australia (fairly useless) or ECan (quite useless) or S.A. (extremely useless) until late in the game, if at all. Props for trying to make this more enticing, but I still think this is weak.
JAPAN:
-----------
Naval Advantage - 16 IPC toward Tech (4 free rolls)
Kaitens - now comes with one free SUB*. SUBs now cost 1 IPC less.
Banzais - may place 1 free INF* on any Orange mainland territory. There are NO restrictions as to what may accompany Banzais. Banzai INF may be supported by RTL and thus potentially attack at 3 1st round.
Yamato Battleships - may purchase 1st Battleship for 5IPC less.
NA: Good move.

Kaitens: At least you've recognized they need a boost :) but this won't cut it. MIGHT make it more likely to be taken, but I still think it loses out to Banzais, Yamatos, TE and NA.
See, Kaitens and Kamikazes are decent ideas, probably good, but I'm just not convinced anything (even this change) will prompt people to take it. I'm still firmly in the "Get rid of Kaitens" group.

Banzai: I think this is way too powerful, and would be surprised if this NA ever gets turned down. You wanted Japan to have a hard time in Asia... I think this tips the scales too far in their favour. Really surprised at this one.

YB: Will definitely consider this one now. Great idea.
USA:
-------
Marines - may place 1 free INF* on any Green continental US territory. INF attack at 2, RTL attack at 3. INF may still be suppored 1:1 by RTL and thus attack at 3 also.
Don't see that artillery needed this boost, as marines already attack at 3, ie. every inf+art combo acted like an art+arm combo, not sure why it needs to act like an arm+arm combo.

[Stephen]

I'm in my parent's basement drooling over scantily-clad magazines while my mother keeps yelling at my father for being a drunk and worthless nobody.

The ocassional, 'your son is just like you', filters its way through the musty insulation.

My need to speak AT people, allows me to hide the pathetic nature of my life, along with the mutliated animal corpses I have buried down here. The fermentation is blamed on my uncleanliness. My mother is cetain I need more thoracine.

A school drop-out, I live my life inside of TV reruns and d&d books. My characters are wealthy and of vast social status. I only play evil characters.

Disection has become a hobby as of late. I have alwas been intrigued by female genitalia, and I think I will start to save some...
now now, I didn't ask you to quote me the lifestyles of others on this board, I asked for YOUR life!
All this runaround...

(BTW, you're confusing language and communication: many animals can learn to communicate but none have language (except for us big hairy apes)... methinks your supervisor had reason to holler at you) :)