@pacifiersboard Italy is only restricted on who it can attack on the turn it declares war. (and Paris is not already in Axis hands)
The restriction is only that it can’t attack territories that have units on that first turn.
Historically accurate setup
-
I don’t know if this would be useful or not, but I have an old copy of 5th edition World in Flames, and it occurred to me once in a drunken stupor that it could be converted to A&A, since they seemed to be similarly scaled. I started with the Sept. 1939 scenario, and then allowed for likely builds and combat losses through May/June 1940. I took the average printed combat power of units of each type for each nation to get a multiplier, which I then applied to the actual number of units. This more or less accounts for differences in quality, since in A&A, infantry is infantry, regardless of whether it represents Chinese conscripts or the German SS. For naval units, I used the research mentioned in my previous posts. Fighters and tac bombers include naval air. If you are not using an optional rule for paratroops, marines, or air transports, just convert them to regular infantry. This might have to be scaled down if you don’t want cluttered maps, but I’ve given the raw numbers below. So, if you trust the historical research of Australian Design Group:
France:
22 infantry, 1 mech, 4 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 2 subs, 1 transportGermany:
36 infantry, 4 mech, 1 para, 8 artillery, 9 tanks, 11 fighters, 6 tacs, 2 bombers, 1 air transport, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 6 subs, 2 transportsItaly:
11 infantry, 1 mech, 5 artillery, 2 tanks, 4 fighters, 4 tacs, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 4 subs, 2 transportsJapan:
32 infantry, 1 mech, 1 marine, 7 artillery, 1 tank, 10 fighters, 9 tacs, 1 bomber, 1 air transport, 3 battleships, 4 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 3 carriers, 2 subs, 4 transportsChina:
22 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighterUSSR:
19 infantry, 2 mech, 1 para, 4 artillery, 6 tanks, 4 fighters, 3 tacs, 1 air transport, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 5 subs, 1 transportCommonwealth (includes both maps plus ANZAC)
24 infantry, 2 mech, 1 para, 4 artillery, 2 tanks, 11 fighters, 5 tacs, 1 bomber, 4 battleships, 7 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 2 carriers, 2 subs, 5 transportsUSA:
7 infantry, 1 mech, 1 marine, 2 artillery, 1 tank, 7 fighters, 6 tacs, 1 air transport, 4 battleships, 4 cruisers, 7 destroyers, 2 carriers, 3 subs, 4 transportsOptional rules:
Air transports: // Cost 6 / Move 4 / Attack 0 / Defense 0 // Can airlift one infantry or para during non-combat movement. Can airdrop one para during combat movement. If AA guns are present, must first survive AA fire, or both the air transport and para are lost.
Paratroops: // Cost 5 / Move 1 / Attack 1 (2) / Defense 2 // Can be dropped on enemy territory during combat movement by an air transport. Attack with a 2 on the first round of combat, and revert to an attack of 1 if the combat lasts more than one round.
Marines: // Cost 5 / Move 1 / Attack 1 (2) / Defense 2 // Function as regular infantry in all ways, except they attack with a 2 during amphibious landings. Unlike paratroops, they retain this attack value until the amphibious combat is complete.
Amphibious landings: All land units except marines attack with a 1 during the first round of combat during an amphibious landing. Tanks cannot be paired with tac bombers during the first round to give them their bonus, but fighters can. Artillery cannot raise the attack value of infantry or marines during the first round of combat. During subsequent rounds, artillery can pair with marines to raise the marine’s attack to 3.
-
ok i think this is how the unkown locations of germany is set up. correct me if wrong!
Germany: 6 inf, 1 mech, 1 art, 2 bombers
Western Germany: 6 inf, 3 tanks, 1 mech, 1 art, 2 ftr, 1 tac
Poland: 6 inf, 2 tanks, 1 mech, 1 art, 2 ftr, 1 tac
Greater southern Germany: 2 inf
Denmark: 1 inf
Norway: 1 inf
Holland: 4 inf, 1 ftr1 sub in each of the following seazones: 103,104,107,108,112,117,118,124
SZ 112: DD
SZ 113: BB, CA, DD
SZ 114: CA, 2 APALSO: the ships listed for UK europe are just for the SZ’s around the UK. theres no info for ships in gibraltar or the med.
RN:
SZ 119: 3 BB, 2 DD, 2 CA
SZ 109: 1 BB, 2 DD, 2 CA, 1 CV, 1 SS
SZ 111: 4 DD
SZ 110: BB, 2 DD, 2 CA, SSi think SZ 19 (gibraltar) has: 1 CV /w tac and a CA
Do we use the same navy in OOB for the med?
Japan has no info for deployment in Korea.
What i setup: germany, UKP, UKE ( navy only ), Japan
-
China:
22 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighterusing IL pacific setup, japan would get steamrolled if thats chinas setup. i dont think this is correct.
IL said he was using real data and the ratios he posted. so i think were gunna stick to that instead of using info from a different board game
-
China raised alot of divisions of poor quality during the war.
-
@Imperious:
China raised alot of divisions of poor quality during the war.
wouldnt that be represented because the ratios used were on the # of units not the quality? because if we use D20’s, then sure, theyd have alot of guys but they would not be as good a Japanese infantry.
-
IL, from your post on harris game design.
Fighters:
Russia - 6/7/12/4
Germany - 7/8/11/4
UK - 7/9/10/4
Japan - 7/7/9/4
US - 7/8/9/4
Italy - 6/7/12/4whats the 4th # used for?
attack/defence/cost/movement?
Destroyers:
Russia -2/3/7/3
Germany - 3/4/6/3
UK -3/3/6/3
Japan - 3/3/5/3
US - 3/3/5/3
Italy - 3/2/6/3that means destroyers move 3???
also this is for D12. do u have a list for D20? ( this is offtopic at the moment because first priority is the setup )
-
That list is from 2004 and was proposed for Advanced Axis and Allies.
the values are correct, and some ships move 3 but that fell out of favor latter.
Just work on setup, and no i do not have d20 list. IMO the game does not need D20
-
i like D20s because each # is a 5% increase rather than a 8.3%. Much easier to fine tune.
-
yea but the dice take a long time to roll. Second problem is to gain support for your ideas you got to not step too far outside the box.
-
I’m not sure that trying to make something different requires you to remain in the box. Many of the A&A games are lacking for the very reason that they kept the box. All of these re-issues and yet many games are still plagued with the same issues they had 20 years ago. ie. the need for bids, unrealistic setups, etc. etc.
Making something totally different might be a nice refreshing change. I don’t think the issue is needing to stay the same as much as it is needing to be very clear in the operation of the new game concept (and game balance goes without saying). Clear rules and usable charts go a long way to help players get a firm grasp and make it playable. The process of attracting people might take longer if the game represents a significant departure, but in many cases it really doesn’t matter. For many, anything other than a sanctioned A&A game is not an option anyway… those people would rather play A&A then a game that offers a different and/or improved experience. So at the end of the day they aren’t your target market anyways. But if people try something different and it works, its following will grow.
Keep going Keodis I’m interested to see what you come up with. Design it as you envision it. It can always be rescaled after the fact.
-
I’m not sure that trying to make something different requires you to remain in the box. Many of the A&A games are lacking for the very reason that they kept the box. All of these re-issues and yet many games are still plagued with the same issues they had 20 years ago. ie. the need for bids, unrealistic setups, etc. etc.
Making something totally different might be a nice refreshing change. I don’t think the issue is needing to stay the same as much as it is needing to be very clear in the operation of the new game concept (and game balance goes without saying). Clear rules and usable charts go a long way to help players get a firm grasp and make it playable. The process of attracting people might take longer if the game represents a significant departure, but in many cases it really doesn’t matter. For many, anything other than a sanctioned A&A game is not an option anyway… those people would rather play A&A then a game that offers a different and/or improved experience. So at the end of the day they aren’t your target market anyways. But if people try something different and it works, its following will grow.
D20 system will not solve any problems regarding those that plague the OOB games as produced. Those problems are due to lack of long term play-testing and people who make incorrect decisions regarding the History and setups, etc. It can still be different with D6 or D12. D12 seems more natural and D20 seems too drastic. Why not D100?
-
OK i am having trouble with the north african deployment. In libya the italians had 10 divisions of infantry, 2 of which were mechanized and had some medium tanks. they also had 300 aircraft that were outdated.
in egypt the UK had an under strength infantry division and an under strength armor division. they also had 205 aircraft that were even more outdated than the italians…… how am i going to represent this in A&A.
also France’s deployment is way too huge ( 16 infantry, 6 mech, 3 tanks, 2 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber ). Germany will take extreme losses. im going to have to alter it because many of the troops didnt even fight and were bypassed. idk what percentage to put their army to. 40% percent strength??
-
OK i am having trouble with the north african deployment. In libya the italians had 10 divisions of infantry, 2 of which were mechanized and had some medium tanks. they also had 300 aircraft that were outdated.
in egypt the UK had an under strength infantry division and an under strength armor division. they also had 205 aircraft that were even more outdated than the italians…… how am i going to represent this in A&A.
Italy would be 2 inf, 1 mech or 1 inf and 1 mech, no fighter.
UK would be 1 Inf, no fighterWhat happened is the Italians attacked in late summer and by October had a huge advantage over UK, but instead they just entrenched because they didn’t capitalize on the mechanization of warfare and decided this was a replay of the Great War.
Just get the deployments right and after that tweak strength.
also France’s deployment is way too huge ( 16 infantry, 6 mech, 3 tanks, 2 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber ). Germany will take extreme losses. im going to have to alter it because many of the troops didn’t even fight and were bypassed. idk what percentage to put their army to. 40% percent strength??
This is easier. France had deployed Infantry, etc in her colonies.
Your goal should be first to find all the data and where everything should go, once you do that you begin process of tweaking. You don’t do it at this point. Finish up and post all of these imbalances latter.
-
OK.
UK Europe: CV’s with no fighters are due to minimal airforce in location or lack of info.
Quebec: inf
SZ 96: AP
SZ 91: CA, CV /w tac
SZ 119: 3 BB, CA, 2 DD
SZ 109: BB, CV /w ftr and tac, 2 CA, 2 DD, SS
Scotland: AAA, inf, ftr
UK: 4 AAA, inf, 2 ftr, 2 tac, bomber
SZ 111: 4 DD
SZ 110: BB, CA, 2 DD, SS
France: (BEF) inf, art, mech
Malta: AAA
SZ 98: BB, CV /w tac, CA, DD
Egypt: inf
Anglo Egyptian Sudan: inf
Union of S Africa: infFrance ( what i know so far )
UK: inf
SZ 105: SS
SZ 93: DD, CA
SZ 92: BB, CA, SS
SZ 99: DD
SZ 110: DD
Morocco: inf
Algeria: inf
Tunisia: inf
French West Africa: inf
Madagascar: inf
Syria: inf
French Indo China: infIm done the USA Europe side and very, very close to finishing Italy. The earlier German setup i posted is not historical, it was a guess at what they would of done. It is extremely hard to find info on their deployment. Once im done Italy and Germany and figured out what to do with France, I can start to look at the USSR. Then im going to double check IL’s Pacific setup he posted.
Ill post the other setups tomorrow morning unless i get called into work.
If anyone wants to help, id appreciate them tackling the USSR or double checking IL’s setup and double checking mine as well.
If we can get a bunch of people to “proof read” this setup then we can sort out all mistakes fairly easily. Thx for all the help! -
French Indo China: inf
They didn’t have what would be 1 inf in FIC, rather i would place this in FWA.
For the Soviets they deployed alot of her forces on the border with some getting ready for attacking Finland and reserve in Moscow and Kiev. The far eastern force should be a mechanized force with tanks, art and at least one fighter. a few infantry too.
I cant remember what my extrapolation was for that, but it was more or less this:
4-5 inf
2-3 Mech
2 Tanks
2 Art
1 Fighter
1 AAA
1 SS
1 AP
1 Port ( Vladivostok) -
thx IL for the info.
are you saying there should be 2 inf in FWA?
-
USA europe Note: lack of AAA guns in my setups are due to no info on them but i know there were AAA guns
Central: tank, mech, art, tac, bomber
Eastern: 2 inf, ftr
SZ101: BB, CV w/ tac n ftr, CA, DD, SS, APItaly:
North: 6 inf, tank, art
South: 4 inf, mech, 2 bombers
Sardinia: inf, tac
Sicily: inf, ftr
Tobruk: inf, mech
Albania: inf
Ethiopia: 2 inf, art
Italian somali: inf
SZ 96: DD, SS, AP
SZ 95: BB, CA, DD, SS, AP
SZ 97: BB, CA, DD, SSGermany invaded Poland with:
61 divisions of infantry
9000 artillery guns
2750 tanks
2315 aircraftGermany invaded France with:
141 divisions of infantry
7300 guns
2500 tanks
5600 aircraftjust with those divisions alone, Germany has 40.4 inf on the board !! thats way more than 26 in the setup that was posted.
Panzer divisions had around 300 tanks in them. so 1 tank piece would be ~600 tanks. But how many guns equal an artillery piece? keep in mind the total # of guns were not used together, inf divisions and tank division used many of the guns. Would assuming half the guns are used elsewhere, and saying 600 guns ( like the tanks ) would represent 1 piece would mean that 7300 guns represent 6 artillery.EDIT: Just realized that maybe some of the divisions of infantry were part of panzer and artillery divisions. I think im wrong and they actually mean 141 divisions of standard infantry
-
are you saying there should be 2 inf in FWA?
Oh in that case Perhaps one inf in FEA, but not 2 in FWA
-
Germany invaded France with:
141 divisions of infantry
7300 guns
2500 tanks
5600 aircraftThis is not correct. Tanks are correct (probably 2300 actually). Aircraft is more like 2800, Infantry is more like 97.
I will check and come back
-
http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Germany/German-Orders-of-Battle-June-1940.htm
http://niehorster.orbat.com/011_germany/40-05-10_army/_okh.html ( on this site count all the XX divisions from each category)
Don’t use Wikipedia for anything factual. It is a guideline or quick reference and by no means accurate ( for the most part)
The totals for the ENTIRE German army: ( deployed in the east, Norway, Denmark, and elsewhere in Germany)
By May 1940, the number of divisions in the German army was as follows:
129 infantry divisions;
8 motorised infantry divisions (3 Waffen-SS);
10 panzer divisions;
3 mountain divisions;
1 cavalry division;
2 airborne divisions;
Suggested Topics
