Ship Placement at Naval Bases

@Ichabod:

This thread reminds me of how I’d play Axis and Allies Global 1940 if I were filthy rich.

Intelligence as a part of the game turn order would be incorporated into the game in military terms as far as gathering information for enemy strength/location ect.

If I was rich…I’d pay people to referee an Axis and Allies Global 1940 game.

There’d be 3 different boards set up in 3 different rooms all for the same game.

1 board would be the Axis Room

1 board would be the Allies Room

1 board in the middle (Axis and Allies side players could not see) would be for the Administrators of the game room only.

Axis and Allies sides could only see numbers/units of enemy units on their border initially whether adjacent by land or sea. From then on, there would be a " Reconnaissance" or Spy turn in the game turn order. Only the Administrators’ room would have the complete setup of the board.

House Rule would be:

1. Repair damaged facilities
2. Purchase units
3. Reconnaissance Step: Players could utilize submarines or S. Bombers for a recon mission. Each Sub or bomber, within it’s range of movement, could pass through or move to (if a sub wants to stay) to spy on one specific land territory or sea zone for a cost of 1 IPC per unit used in that part of the turn order. Players would have to smartly “save” IPCs for the RECON part of the turn order. Each side would be informed which territory was spied on. In the case of being spied on by subs, players would have to hunt the sub with a destroyer. Subs or S. Bombers used for RECON could not be moved in the Combat movement phase.

Whatever intel is discovered during the RECON phase, the corresponding units would be placed on the board of the side who just completed a RECON mission. On the opposing sides’ turn, if the “discovered” units were moved to a new location (not adjacent to an enemy controlled territory), than that intel would be lost and the administrators would come and remove the pieces from the corresponding sides’ board. A German sub out in the Atlantic could slip away to RECON the W. US…

Axis and Allies players COULD still place a specific color (I’ll call it purple units) on their board for their estimation of what and where they think the enemy units may have went to.

In this game, each side would have to do their own S2 (Intelligence) estimate for where the enemy was concentrating. Japan for instance may send subs or bombers close to the Western US to see what warships were being built in dry dock. Germany would have to RECON Leningrad (so they don’t blunder into a Russian counter attack) or SZ91 in case a landing is coming.

Good news, you don’t need to be filthy rich. Once I finish all the general’s booklets, I am going to print them and they are folded. Next, you place your general token on the map and, keeping the general passport upright, you put the units he commands behind it. So your opponent will only see the general piece and not the army. Haven’t thought about recon but, one D6 before combat phase and the opponent has to reveal that number of units in an accurate ratio of his forces.

Neat idea you gave me :p

@the_jetset:

Retreating fleets disperse and then regroup again once safe.

Not necessarily.  “Disperse then regroup” is a tactic that was used – and only as a desparate last resort – by convoys of merchant vessels under heavy enemy attack.  I’m not aware of warship fleets using this technique extensively in WWII; some naval tacticians like Wayne Hughes have argued that warships are actually in a much better position when they’re concentrated than when they’re dispersed.

The Japanese fleet at Midway didn’t disperse as a result of its defeat because it was already dispersed when the operation started.  In his book Miracle at Midway, Gordon Prange faulted Yamamoto for his dispositions in the Midway operation: the Japanese fleet was broken up into several widely-separted forces, none of which was close enough to the other to provide any meaningful assistance to each other.  This dispersion wasted the enormous numerical superiority that the Japanese had over the Americans.  In fairness, the Japanese Navy as a whole (and not just Yamamoto) had a fondness for elaborate operations involving multiple fleets; their operation at Leyte Gulf in 1944 was another example.

Thanks YG.  Please keep the ideas coming.  I’m grabbing bits and pieces and mashing it together with some of my own ideas to make a nice set of rules that works out for my group too.

Yeah exactly. Another huge problem I have with this game is as said in the other forms, that units should have different attacks and defense against certain units. Transport craft in WWII have basic defense abilities against aircraft and fast attack craft so I still argue that it should have a defense of 1 for the sake of logic in this game.

@Uncrustable:

Tac bombers need something, they are rarely produced relative to fighters and strat bombers

I would also suggest letting tanks roll a 4 for each tac bomber present if air supremacy has been achieved, that is for each tac bomber one tank rolls at 4 instead of 3. Tac bombers do not change
This even further increases air buys and also gives tanks a buff which they need

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Air supremacy is checked for each round of combat, before any dice are rolled for that round

These rules will magnify both fighters and tac bombers buys as well as tanks, and also promote a combined arms approach to purchases similar to artillery and infantry

You want enough fighters to achieve air supremacy, but also a good even amount of tac bombers and tanks to maximize air supremacy when you do achieve it

This kills multiple birds with a single stone
It should reduce somewhat the infantry/mech spam with sprinkles of artillery that we see now
It also indirectly buffs AAA as each AAA adds 3 more dice to the air battle in defense, and increases your chance of gaining control of the skies

Very thoughtful ideas. I like them.
However my first impression is your HR change much more the balance.
I’m looking for just small changes.
I will come back on this.
You have some compelling reason like this one:

We already have a round of combt befor normal combat (AAA) just add all planes to that round, everything hitting on 1s. Easy

Thank you very much for your challenging ideas.

What if Naval Bases could provide AA cover for ships in a sea zone serviced by a NB. It would seem logical, since the base is located near the coast and would most likely be equipped with Anti Aircraft weapons. So the rule would go something like this: Naval Bases could conduct an opening fire defensive action using an AA gun that could target no more than 3 air units, this would last only one round. After the AA gun fires, normal combat proceeds.

Though if the NB being used is damaged, it cannot use this ability.

For comparing out abilities, putting 600 subs vs 120 BB or 200 Cruisers vs the BB or whatever may help to show the statistical differences, but you’ll never have 600 subs or 40 BB in a real game.  Usually you will have them in a combined fleet of ships or you would prefer them to be.  They are often alone though.

I was thinking of the beginning setup of AAE.  In the Gibraltar Strait you have a Destroyer, which for all intents and purposes has the stats of a Cruiser in AA50.  To take that I have often see merely a fighter and a sub take it on, and the sub being sacrificed.  Or the Italian fleet comes over and lands on Gibraltar at the same time, having the BB absorb any possible hits.
  But at the outset of AAR, there is a BB in that strait and often a larger force is brought to bear, that because 2 hits are needed so the goal is to get them on the 1st round rather than give the BB 2 shots.

So there is a larger difference in the mental impact of a BB vs other ships.  There is a thread in the AA50 section about how a Cruiser/Destroyer combo is always more useful and versatile than a BB for the same cost. 
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13648.0
Not advocating for/against on that, just pointing out the discussion at this point.  But in that you are talking ship combos, not all BB vs anything else.  For BB you get some additional mental agony for the opponent while you get some additional financial agony.

Along the lines of what you have proposed:
I am not sure about the suitability of having ports have any defense, but rather coming up with a unit that can adress a number of characteristics of a fortified territory (think maginot defenses).

REPAIR DAMAGED BATTLESHIPS
Battleships are powerful units. A damaged battleship may be repaired if it is in a sea zone adjacent to a territory with an IC controlled by its country. The repair costs are equal to the roll of one d6. The battleship may not move or participate in combat during the turn of repair. The repair is complete at the end of the players turn.

Fortresses
These units can be added to any controlled territory for the cost of 10 IP and can defend only with two rolls each combat round with a defense value of 3/3.They “protect” the defending units from direct attack. The units inside the fortress cannot be affected by attacking combat rolls until the fortress is destroyed by a roll of 1 only. Once built they cannot move and if destroyed cannot be reused by enemy forces. The maximum number of fortresses is limited to the IP value of the territory and in the case of China is limited to one.