Request for Review of New Unit Ideas (d10)

  • '17 '16

    With D10 system, it is easier to calculate all the odds because we are accustomed to decimal system and percentage.

  • '16

    I really appreciate all the feedback. Special thanks to Argothair for that detailed analysis!

    I’m inclined toward a d10 base for two reasons. First, as Baron points out, players can easily calculate their odds. Second, it still offers an appreciable chance to hit for units at 1 or 2. I am worried that a d12 base would make A1 or A2 units all but worthless and cause the game to grind to a halt.

    Argothair, how about the following?

    1. Eliminate the ability of Light Infantry to be supported. If that isn’t enough, scale their attack back to 1.

    2. Increase the attack value of Marines by 1. They are not the only units able to make amphibious assaults, but they don’t suffer penalties for doing so.

    3. Increase the cost of transport planes by 2. Perhaps shorten their range?

    4. The cargo transport should cost more than the troop transport. That was an error on my part.

    I plan to introduce a supply system that limits the number of moves that a player can make in a turn. The supply points will be prorated based on the strength of a power’s economy. Building supply columns and fleet trains can increase the supply pool, but they can be captured.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    That all sounds good to me! I would rather see transport ships get faster than see transport planes get more expensive, but you do you.

    One note on the supply trains: it might be useful to have them support a movement to or from their current location without the expenditure of “national” supply, rather than just straight up add supply points. Otherwise I will have my American supply boats in the Caribbean support my extended fleet operations in the Leyte Gulf, out by the Phillippines. Good luck capturing my supply boats!

  • '16

    That is indeed how I intended supply columns and fleet trains to work – locally.

    Transport ships were historically slow, so I need to keep them at 1 or 2 speed.


  • If you really consider to give a defense value to a Tranny, then we are back to the classic A&A issues. There will be no reason to buy surface warships. I only need to buy a stack of Trannies, and all the one eyes they roll will sink all the attacking battleships, for a cost of some cheap Trannies. This is the reason that A&A Trannies have no defense today. And even worse, if Trannies got a defense value, you can use them as cheap fodder. There are no excuse for a unit with combat value to be taken last as casualty. A game changer

  • '17

    1. ARTILLERY - I think regular artillery and self-propelled artillery should attack at the same die level. The increased cost for self-propelled artillery should only be a direct reflection of the 1 extra movement point.

    From a realism perspective, the guns are normally the same caliber. Only when you get to the category of “Heavy Artillery” are they required to be pulled and are rarely motorized.

    think if you say you had two types of artillery, regular OOB, and self-propelled, you could add an extra 1 IPC purchase cost. I thought about doing this for Axis and Allies Global 1940 2nd edition. It would fill the empty 5 IPC slot. Just like mech, I’d say that self-propelled artillery could blitz when paired with a tank.

    2. TOO MANY CATEGORIES: I think 3 categories of artillery is a lot. You only have 2 categories of armor. 5 categories of infantry is not worth it. How about normal infantry and marines but with a paratrooper rule. That’s plenty? I suggest only 2 categories of infantry, artillery, and armor (if you so desire to add that extra layer of complexity). Otherwise, I think the board would get too busy with 3 different types of each. Global 40 is already very busy on the board as it is.

    3. PLANE TYPES: What is the difference between a “Pursuit” and a Fighter? Is it really necessary to differentiate and add another category? I thought the normal 3 categories were plenty (fig, tac, bomb). At the same time, I always thought perhaps another plane type, transport, could make for some interesting roles like dropping paratroopers or transporting infantry to a forward location. So, I do like how you listed Transport Plane as another plane type.


  • @Ichabod:

    3. PLANE TYPES: What is the difference between a “Pursuit” and a Fighter? Is it really necessary to differentiate and add another category?

    In terms of the real-world evolution of combat aircraft, I think that “pursuit ship” is just an older American term for what would be called a fighter today.  It’s the reason for the “P” prefix of WWII-era US planes like the P-40 Warhawk or the P-38 Lightning.  USAF fighters today have “F” prefixes, as in the case of the F-15 Eagle.

  • '16

    @Narvik:

    If you really consider to give a defense value to a Tranny, then we are back to the classic A&A issues. There will be no reason to buy surface warships. I only need to buy a stack of Trannies, and all the one eyes they roll will sink all the attacking battleships, for a cost of some cheap Trannies. This is the reason that A&A Trannies have no defense today. And even worse, if Trannies got a defense value, you can use them as cheap fodder. There are no excuse for a unit with combat value to be taken last as casualty. A game changer

    That’s a terrific observation. I think, on that basis, they can be reduced to 0. I certainly don’t want roving wolfpacks of transports.

    @Ichabod:

    1. ARTILLERY - I think regular artillery and self-propelled artillery should attack at the same die level. The increased cost for self-propelled artillery should only be a direct reflection of the 1 extra movement point.

    From a realism perspective, the guns are normally the same caliber. Only when you get to the category of “Heavy Artillery” are they required to be pulled and are rarely motorized.

    think if you say you had two types of artillery, regular OOB, and self-propelled, you could add an extra 1 IPC purchase cost. I thought about doing this for Axis and Allies Global 1940 2nd edition. It would fill the empty 5 IPC slot. Just like mech, I’d say that self-propelled artillery could blitz when paired with a tank.

    You won me over with the argument on caliber. I had originally looked at it with the perspective that a more mobile gun was necessarily more effective tactically as well as strategically, but I think they can be put on par. Gives folks more reason to buy Heavy Artillery.

    I am also happy for SPG to be allowed to blitz with armor.

    2. TOO MANY CATEGORIES: I think 3 categories of artillery is a lot. You only have 2 categories of armor. 5 categories of infantry is not worth it. How about normal infantry and marines but with a paratrooper rule. That’s plenty? I suggest only 2 categories of infantry, artillery, and armor (if you so desire to add that extra layer of complexity). Otherwise, I think the board would get too busy with 3 different types of each. Global 40 is already very busy on the board as it is.

    Variety is a basic objective of mine.

    3. PLANE TYPES: What is the difference between a “Pursuit” and a Fighter? Is it really necessary to differentiate and add another category? I thought the normal 3 categories were plenty (fig, tac, bomb). At the same time, I always thought perhaps another plane type, transport, could make for some interesting roles like dropping paratroopers or transporting infantry to a forward location. So, I do like how you listed Transport Plane as another plane type.

    Minor nations start with Pursuit Planes. Major nations start with Fighters.

  • '16

    The map is still in flux. I misjudged how much work would need to go into developing something of high quality.

    While we have a draft prepared on MSPaint, I’m not sure how to determine what resolution is appropriate for printing. The immediate next step will be to figure that out, then print on very cheap paper and play some games as a proof-of-concept for both the rules and territory placement.

    The MSPaint draft, when compared to a .gif of the Global War map, is significantly smaller in size. Does anybody have any ideas about how to proceed?

    Another option, and one I’d like to implement, is just to buy a very large fold-out map of the world and draw borders and sea zones by hand. I am totally open to that, but I’ve been unable to find such a map.

  • '17

    @Trenacker:

    2. TOO MANY CATEGORIES: I think 3 categories of artillery is a lot. You only have 2 categories of armor. 5 categories of infantry is not worth it. How about normal infantry and marines but with a paratrooper rule. That’s plenty? I suggest only 2 categories of infantry, artillery, and armor (if you so desire to add that extra layer of complexity). Otherwise, I think the board would get too busy with 3 different types of each. Global 40 is already very busy on the board as it is.

    Variety is a basic objective of mine.

    Ok Cool. I understand that and really like your intent. We all play G40 BECAUSE it’s more complex than Classic or Revised. It’s your mod and if you ever finish it and the opportunity were to arise, I’d be happy to try this with you. The alternate scenario you setup during our Nashville meetup was interesting.

    SMALL BOARD: The reason I was saying that 2 types of infantry, 2 types of artillery, 2 types of infantry, 2 types of armor, 3 types of planes (OOB) plus “maybe” a transport plane would be plenty is mainly due to the room on the board. The board is already very busy as it is. I think adding 1 extra type adds a SIGNIFICANT extra layer of complexity and would meet your intent. Also, at a certain point in time, players would learn which pieces were the best buy and then a lot of the variety of types might not even be purchased. But the board would still be cluttered in areas with 4 different types of planes…ect. It’s like German players mostly buying Strategic Bombers even though for 1 IPC cheaper they could get a Tac. Bomber or the US and Japan never buying cruisers.

    Strategic Perspective Argument: Lastly, keep in mind that Axis and Allies is a game played at the Strategic Level of War, (sometimes in G40 you could argue that battles are played out at the Operational Level of War). But its not at the tactical level at all which is why I think more than 1 extra variety of stuff is not needed. To differentiate between minors and majors, you could replace out some of the standard stuff with more advanced stuff. Example, replace 1 or 2 of the artillery in Western Germany with SPG. Then if those units survive, they could start marching towards Russia. Likewise, replace 1 or 2 of the Russian pieces with SPG so they have more mobile units. All minors would not get SPGs and any of their tanks or initial purchases would have to be the lower levels for rounds 1-2.


  • One of the reasons why I also hope AnA moves to a ten sided die is because of 1: math is easier 2: it will allow units to have better odds. I never liked the idea of infantry only attacking at 1, it makes it appear on a 6 die that infantry is garbage.

  • '16

    I may have mentioned it previously, but I will be bringing my new unit rules, plus the new setup, along with the HBG Global War and Global War 1936 maps, to NashCon next week.

    Ichabod, you are correct that even Axis & Allies Global 1940 2e is at the Strategic or Operational level of warfare, depending on where one looks. You get things like army groups and fleets in some territories, but independent commands below the division level in others (e.g., Hong Kong at game start).

    I have decided to accept board clutter as the cost of adding so many new things. I am working on a much larger 4’x10’ map to partially offset this.

    From the strategic perspective, you are correct that the new unit rules are an awkward mix of operational- and tactical-level factors for a game that, overall, tries to be strategic. Again, since the objective is to play with more little plastic pieces, I’ve accepted the risk.

    Neat idea about minors receiving weaker or less mobile pieces to reflect older equipment and lower standards of training.


  • People will complain unfortunately if Minor nations had out dated equipment, which they did. In fact even some of the major powers had out dated equipment. USSR for example had only two WWI era battleships at the start of WWII.

  • '16

    So long as nobody has to play those nations, complaints are at a minimum. :)


  • Lets be honest, if you’re playing USSR or a minor nation, all you are really doing is stalling the Axis powers.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 8
  • 26
  • 1
  • 4
  • 39
  • 3
  • 13
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

45

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts