Looking for Triple A Modder to Help with Proof-of-Concepts for Board Game

@Black_Elk:

I have done a lot of experimenting with the AA50 game board, but trying to use G40 rules on it is not something I have tried. I’m curious what you have in mind?

Do you mean like using G40 with an expanded unit roster? In that case it may be possible to include Tac Bombers or Mech, possibly G40 factories (with their restrictions) but I think the air and naval bases would be out, since the movement advantage would bust the map. Not using Air bases would handle the most problematic aspect of G40 on a AA50 board, since you wouldn’t have to deal with scrambling.

AA50 could probably support 2 hit carriers, though that might bust the opening battles. I suppose if you really wanted to retain the repair aspect on ships, you could just attach it to coastal factories, though that might give Japan a decisive advantage over the US in the pacific.

Beyond this, the Tac Bombers and Mech, I’m not sure what the payoff would be using G40 rules over AA50 OOB.

I think AA50 is a superior game to Global in many respects,  especially in terms of the learning curve and the total playtime to conclusion, so I’d be pretty excited to see it on offer if I showed up at someone’s house to find it set on a table.

I’m just spit balling, might be easier to just play by the AE rules rather than go though the work of making the G40 unit profiles compatible with the AE board. It’s been a long time since I played AE, but maybe it’s time to revisit it.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22164.0

Here is the Dark Grey Minor Set with a Panzer III of each color in front.
Axis minors-250.jpg

Tigerman,

As you know in about a month HBG will be releasing it’s US Supplement Set with a real winning cast of units included:

P-40 Warhawk (early) Fighters, P-51 Mustang (Late) Fighters, C-46 Commando Transports, Airborne Parachute Infantry, M-3 Stuart Light Tanks, M-5 Priest S/P Artillery, M-10 Hellcat Tank Destroyers, Nevada “class” Battleships, Casablanca “class” Escort Carriers, Mack 2 1/2-ton Trucks, TBF Avenger Torpedo Bombers, and B-25 Mitchell Medium Bombers.  WOW!!!  This will be a GREAT Set.

It’s not open to Pre-Orders YET, but should be VERY soon.  Everyone should really make sure they don’t miss out on orderring this GREAT SET.  Later, Guys

“Tall Paul”

INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES

Minor IC COST: 8 UPGRADE COST: 7

Can produce: Militia, Infantry, Artillery, Anti Aircraft Guns, Fighters, Transports, Submarines, and Destroyers

Major IC  COST: 15

Can produce: ALL OF THE ABOVE PLUS: Tanks, Bombers, Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers and Battleships

An Industrial Complex (IC) can be built on any territory that your Power has controlled since the start of your turn. Minor ICs may only be built on a territory with a value of 1 IPC or more. Major ICs must be built on a territory with a value of 3 IPC or more. There is a limit of one IC per territory. The cost to upgrade a Minor IC into a Major IC is 7 IPCs.

Newly purchased land and air units must be placed into the territory with the IC. Sea units can only be placed into a sea zone adjacent to the territory with the IC, so long as there is a Naval Base on the territory coastline that touches the sea zone.

For example, the IC in the territory of North Italy is adjacent to two sea zones; SZ 27 and SZ 28. However, as the Naval Base in North Italy is sitting on the coastline that touches SZ 27, newly purchased naval units can only be placed into SZ 27. If the player controlling Italy bought another Naval Base and placed it on the coastline touching SZ 28, then he/she would be able to place new naval units into SZ 28 as well.

IC placement.jpg

@WILD:

So as the defender you bring in 2 reinf 2nd wave. The attacker doesn’t like the odds and has no eligible units to reinf so he retreats. The defender would then have to pull his 2 reinf units back and they would be idle for 1 complete round? Sounds like a good bluff and you might hold on to the country. Keeping track of idle units might be hard, because you could end up with several nations with idle units causing some confusion. Don’t get me wrong I like the idea of the defender having options for reinforcements or retreat. I think its silly to think the defender would just sit there and let the enemy dictate the battle with out using all his resources. Maybe someone else will chime in with an idea or two.

yeah hopefuly

First, I am assuming that all submarines in A & A attack from periscope depth, not the surface.  That is the only way that the first strike rule for submarines can be justified.  If all subs are attacking on the surface then aircraft should be able to attack subs without a destroyer present, and all surface ships should get a free shot at the sub with no chance of reply, as most successful torpedo attacks occurred at ranges of less than 2,000 yards, point blank range for surface guns.  The attack chance is based on a submerged sub attacking a sub running on the surface, not submerged.  WW2 boats spent most of their time on the surface, submerging only to attack or avoid aircraft and surface ships.  The snorkel only came into use by the Germans in mid-1944, and did allow for diesel running while submerged.  If you wish, I will post a detailed discussion of WW2 submarine tactics and operational proceedures.  If you argue that all subs are always submerged, then they should have a movement of 1 sea zone every two turns, to reflect the very low speed of submerged running.  You cannot have it both ways.

OK yes submarines attacked at periscope depth and then immediately submerged at the first sign of trouble. And what the ‘first strike’ idea is supposed to model. However, fighters didn’t have the tactic of attacking subs down until the mid war period and up until that time reconnaissance planes ( in our case bombers) were used as spotters for convoy or for wolf packs to hunt convoy system. Those snorkel types you mentioned are the type XXI Walter U-boat turbine system which could travel in some cases underwater faster than some allied destroyers ( about 16 knots). Also you have to know that a turn in AA is something like 4-6 months which is plenty of time to move around and not really effect its movement. The 2 movement point thing is for play balance issues because if naval vessels had unlimited range it would mess up the game because its already a highly abstracted strategic system.

As for a submerged submarine sinking a submerged submarine, the HMS Venturer sank the U-864 while both were submerged on February 6, 1945.  This is the first recorded case of a submerged sub being sunk by another submerged sub.  Both the US and the UK in the immediate postwar period began the development of hunter-killer subs designed specifically for submerged ASW engagement.  During WW2, British submarines sank 35 enemy submarines.  I will need to check on the totals for the other countries.

I knew you would bring up that example: but the game is representing one submarine as something like 20-40 submarines for each ‘piece’ and that is only one example near the last days of the war. Hardly anything to base a major principle of naval combat on IMO. The game has to reflect what actually happened as a matter of normal affairs during the war . All postwar developments wont help us model WW2.

It’s very good, except … I think the US scenarios
are a wee bit OVER THE TOP!