Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition) Phase one proposal (draft)

[theduke]

Thanks for all your comments. I didn’t go into detail as to why I think those rules I made up were more realistic. When we make the official writeup we’ll need to go into why the rules we made are more realistic (just like how the OOB rules justify their NAs with a little blurb just before introducing the NA).

I’ll try to answer all your questions:

player automatically collects 4 IPCs before the battle takes place and adds it to the rest of his IPCs.
What are you trying to model? Kamikaze fighters can be stripped down before setting off? 4 IPC is a lot too.

Purpose-built kamikazes planes had only the bare necessities. Very cheap… they didn’t even have landing gear (1 way trip only)! The 4 IPCs is to simulate the cheaper costs. The reason why you get the money when you declare the kamikaze is because not all planes were Kamikazes and we don’t want new units in phase 1. It is the simply the easiest way to distinguish the 2 types of Japanese planes without having 2 actually different units.

but they only have half the number of moves as a regular Japanese fighter
I don’t understand why you reducing the range of kamikaze.

Kamikazes were not used in the middle of the Pacific. They were used as a last resort to protect the home islands. It’s not realistic to allow kamikazes a large range to be able to leave Japan and take out US ships in Hawaii. I’m thinking about not even allowing LRA to apply to kamikazes even if Japan acquires that tech. Kamikaze planes were too cheap to utilize that tech.

US only pays 13 IPCs for each CV and every CV can move 3 per turn.
That would be the rapid building of light carriers made from cruiser hull? Then it should be cheaper but only take 1 hit. And it shouldn’t move faster. Maybe put a US marker underit to denote.

Yes, and CVs will still be 1 hit units in phase 1. Cruiser were faster ships so I think CVs should be able to move 3. Why do we need to denote CVs with US markers? All CVs should be represented the same.

1. Radar= Every AA gun unit can be used to detect 1 enemy sub in an adjacent SZ on a roll of 4 or less
   Submarines are detected by sonar not radar? Coastal defense is not about sub I think.

Radar played a very critical role in the detection of subs. Sonar detects submerged subs, radar detects surfaced subs (Sonar doesn’t work well on surfaced subs). Before advances in radar, subs attacked fairly easily by moving in close to the surface to avoid sonar and depth charges, etc… Radar and LRA were a couple of the most profound advances in ASW and completely turned around the 2nd Battle of the Atlantic to the Allies favor (yes, the Axis were actually winning on that front before these advances even though you couldn’t have guessed it from how it’s represented in the OOB rules!  :wink:)

As for AA gun unit being affected by radar, I’m thinking of the AA gun unit as a ‘Military Defensive Unit’ or something like that (I’m still working on ideas for names- help please?). It will iincorporatestructures like radar towers, and ccoastalfortifications as well as city defenses like interceptors and rtl like flak and coast rtl. In later phases we can have many units represent these if we choose, but I’d like no new units for phase 1.

[theduke]

4. Long-range aircraft= All your fighters move 6….Whenever any of your bombers get shot down you have a choice of either (a) paying 10 IPCs and losing the ability of bombing the enemy in that same turn
   This built-in escort fighters model is great. But I think all bombers should have it. Or “long-range aircraft” tech needs a change of name. 10 IPC is the cost of a whole fighter piece, maybe it should be 5 IPCs?

Quote
5) Jet Fighters= Your AA gun units hit enemy air units on a 1 or 2.
I think only if you have fighters in that territory.

Quote
6) Heavy Bombers= Enemy AA gun units detect your bombers at half the number that they would otherwise detect them
I don’t understand why heavy bombers are harder to detect!

I like the simplicity of hitting a bomber kills a bomber unit. I like the idea of simulating improved escort cover with LRA. My vote is to keep it is as but as always I’m open to any new ideas. If the enemy AA gun hits a bomber with LRA, it should at least be registered as a full hit on a fighter escort unit (=10 IPCs). Not half an escort unit. Where are you getting 5 IPCs from?

Interceptors are not fighter units IMO. I don’t like the idea of a player needing to use most of his fighters as escorts/interceptors. It starts to dull the game IMO. Since interceptors are represented by AA gun unit, the jet interceptors should also be represented by that unit, not fighter units. Fighter units get the 5 defense bonus for jet power. I’m open to any new ideas.

Heavy bombers can fly at a much higher altitude then medium bombers. Hence, harder to target.

Whats this target/detect thing?
Does it apply to SBR only?
What happens when we have SBR AND land combat?

Weren’t you there when I came up with that? It’s in 1 of the posts in one of the old threads. All air units and subs need to be first detected or targeted before they can be hit. It makes subs worth the money so they aren’t instantly hit in the 1st turn. Now they are hit much less often. Try looking in the old ‘historical edition’ topic for more info (the one with 7 pages). I haven’t decided if this apples to all actual combat with planes, or just for flying over enemy territory. I don’t think it should apply to regular combat, but it’s still on the drawing board.

[theduke]

OK this is much better… good!  Now can you restate your aa gun rule in a manner thats streamlined?  BTW dom you think we need more techs than you listed?

New idea! I just changed the AA gun unit so it’s not used to detect subs anymore. I think this new idea is simpler and will be better accepted by players (it’s less abstract). Now radar just causes all units detecting subs to detect on a 4 or less instead of a 2 or less. AA guns are still not used at all in detecting subs, but they are used in targeting air units. Make sense?

I need ideas what to call this AA gun unit so that it incorporates all coastal defenses and SBR defenses (both interceptors and flak). Coastal and Aerial Defensive Unit?

I like only 6 techs for phase 1. Keep it simple that way and it works well with the whole ‘7 minus target number equals breakthrough number’. With any other number of techs, it wouldn’t work. We can and will have many more techs in one of the latter phases.

AA gun unit rules:
Against air units:
No more than 3 AA guns may fire in any 1 territory. Anytime an enemy air unit flies over a territory, either in combat or non-combat move phases, the AA guns may fire against those air units. Each AA gun (up to 3) rolls 1 die to target an air unit. For every roll of a 1 or 2 an air unit has been targeted. For every successful target roll roll another die to determine the number of air units shot down. An air unit is shot down on a roll of a 1.

Against amphibious assaults:
No more than 3 AA gun units may fire during an amphibious assault. Roll 1 die for every AA gun (up to 3) to target 1 unloading transport. The transport has been successfully targeted on a roll of a 1 or 2. For every roll of a 1 or 2, roll another die to attempt to hit the transport. The enemy transport is hit on a roll of a 1. Repeat again for all other unloading transports.

[theduke]

1. Radar= Every surface naval unit and fighter unit now detects enemy subs on a roll of 4 or less instead of just a 2 or less. Also, every AA gun (max of 3 may fire per territory) may detect enemy air units flying over the territory on a roll of 4 or less.

2. Rockets= You may purchase rockets at a cost of 2 IPCs each. Any number of rockets may be fired from any number of your territories, provided that every territory a rocket is fired from is contiguously connected to your capital. Once a rocket is fired from a territory, it has a range to 2 to reach an enemy IC. The amount of damage done to the IC is equal to the larger of 2 dice rolls. Always roll for each rocket individually (i.e always roll only 2 dice at a time). You may rocket attack any number of enemy ICs, but the max damage done to any IC is equal to the territory’s IPC value.

3. Super Subs= All your subs attack/ defend and interdict enemy commerce at a roll of 3 or less. Also, subs may move 3 in the non-combat move phase (Note that subs still can’t move in both the combat and non-combat move phases in the same turn).

4. Long-range aircraft= All your fighters move 6. All your bombers that don’t move in the combat move phase get to move 8 in the non-combat move phase of that same turn. Whenever any of your bombers get shot down you have a choice of either (a) paying 10 IPCs and losing the ability of bombing the enemy in that same turn or (b) assigning the bomber as a casualty as usual.

5. Jet Fighters= Your AA gun units hit enemy air units on a 1 or 2. Your fighters are detected by enemy AA gun units at half the  number they would otherwise detect them (i.e. they detect your fighters only on a 1 without radar and on a 1 or 2 with radar). Also, your fighters defend at a 5.

6. Heavy Bombers= Enemy AA gun units detect your bombers at half the number that they would otherwise detect them (i.e. they detect your bombers only on a 1 without radar and on a 1 or 2 with radar). Also, take the larger of 2 rolls to determine damage during tactical and strategic bombing.

Rules regarding techs:

Each tech roll still costs 5 IPCs. No nation may spend more than half their IPCs in the Technology Development phase of that turn.

The tech/s you are rolling to develop are declared before you roll. If you roll the same number as the ‘target number’ associated with the tech (see above) then you develop the tech. If you roll the number that equals 7 minus the target number, then you achieved a technology breakthrough. A technology breakthrough makes it much easier to develop that specific tech later in the game. For every technology breakthrough you achieve in a certain tech category, you get 1 additional free die roll in every turn that you buy at least 1 tech roll for that same tech. For example if you achieved 2 breakthroughs in Super Subs (i.e. you previously you rolled a 4 two separate times while attempting to get Super Subs) but still have not developed Super Subs, then on the next turn that you buy a tech roll for Super Subs you get to roll a total of 3 dice to develop that tech (1 for the purchased roll + 2 free die rolls for the 2 breakthroughs). Breakthroughs may only be used in the same tech category that you obtained them in.

[theduke]

Notice that I posted some changes to the techs. Radar doesn’t affect AA guns with ASW, but instead it affects all combat units attacking the subs. Also, IMO Super Subs need to be better so now they also move 3 in the non-combat move phase only.

FYI, I’m working on some new escort and interceptor rules that I think you’ll like much, much better! Still in the works though.

[Imperious Leader]

ok still studying this stuff…

[theduke]

I think we should also introduce the 2 following minor changes:

US national unit advantage should allow CVs to only move 3 in the non-combat move phase only.

Destroyers (which also represent cruisers and frigates in phase 1) also move 3 in non-combat move phase only.

This connection between the moves of the 2 types of units brings together the idea of US CVs being built on cruiser hulls for speed.

[Imperious Leader]

Why do these ships “slow down” during combat? They move farther and that should count during either phase. How do you feel that this would be some large advantage? BTW in phase two comes the extra units like the cruiser so im not sure we really need destroyers moving 3 spaces because they were slower anyway and now we got the cruiser. If the DD is going 3 spaces, then the BB is totally useless. so we have to keep some units at 2 and others at 3. BB and DD at 2 with CA and CV at 3.

[theduke]

Why do these ships “slow down” during combat?

I figure combat takes up a lot of time and fuel that has a significant effect on range. If a naval unit has to search around and hunt for the enemy that’s going to take a considerable amount of time and fuel because they won’t be travelling in a straight line. Non-combat movement has a very differnet goal. It is to get to it’s destination as quickly as possible. That is my reasoning. Do you think it’s sound?

In phase 1 no other unit incorporates cruisers, so I think DDs should incorporate them. Some of these rules will probaby have to be changed around anyway so I don’t think it’s a big problem giving DDs an ability of moving 3 in phase 1 and then taking it away when we introduce the separate cruiser unit. If you feel strongly about it we don’t have to have DD units move 3 in non-combat. Opinions?

I still feel that CVs should only move 3 in non-combat to discourage them from being used as fodder in a combat 3 spaces away. The carrier will still be able to join the rest of the naval force 3 spaces away, just not make it in time for combat. I think it will work out well. Opinions?

[Imperious Leader]

I figure combat takes up a lot of time and fuel that has a significant effect on range. If a naval unit has to search around and hunt for the enemy that’s going to take a considerable amount of time and fuel because they won’t be travelling in a straight line. Non-combat movement has a very differnet goal. It is to get to it’s destination as quickly as possible. That is my reasoning. Do you think it’s sound?

When ships enter combat operations say for example when they engage in surface combat they speed up, because slow moving ships get hit easier. The fuel question can be accomodated in assuming that supply ships/tankers  can travel with fleets for refueling purposes. The idea is really a quick reaction force sacrificing speed for firepower. At midway the carriers traveled seperate because they could get to where they were wanted much quicker, while the Battleships were in a followup fleet to deliver the “coupe de main” on any surface action that was possible.

In phase 1 no other unit incorporates cruisers, so I think DDs should incorporate them. Some of these rules will probaby have to be changed around anyway so I don’t think it’s a big problem giving DDs an ability of moving 3 in phase 1 and then taking it away when we introduce the separate cruiser unit. If you feel strongly about it we don’t have to have DD units move 3 in non-combat. Opinions?

++++++++++Im am not sure if we should give destroyers a 3 move, then in another phase just as easily take them away and make them move 2 spaces, because each platform or phase or rules is another layer of ideas that in themselves should not be deleated but only added to make an accurate historical record possible for the projects purpose. WE open up the problem of people asking how is it historical in phase one and not in phase two? WE have to be consistent.

I still feel that CVs should only move 3 in non-combat to discourage them from being used as fodder in a combat 3 spaces away. The carrier will still be able to join the rest of the naval force 3 spaces away, just not make it in time for combat. I think it will work out well. Opinions?

I feel it will work as you do, but why dont you feel it wont work if they move 3 in combat phase like cruisers?

[theduke]

I’ll answer your questions but I first want to introduce you more idea I have for techs. In order to incourage a more steady purchasing strategy for tech development we should introduce the following rule:

Tech Development Re-startup fee:
If on any turn a given nation doesn’t purchase any tech rolls, then on the next turn that the nation buys at least 1 tech roll, the nation must pay an additional 5 IPCs as a re-startup penalty.

Onto the movement questions…

At midway the carriers traveled separate because they could get to where they were wanted much quicker, while the Battleships were in a followup fleet to deliver the “coupe de main” on any surface action that was possible.

So I guess we agree it’s good to have CVs move at 3. I’m OK with having DDs only move 2, like all other ships.

I feel it will work as you do, but why don’t you feel it wont work if they move 3 in combat phase like cruisers?

I don’t want US exploiting the 3 moves. What I’m envisioning is Japan having a lone transport 3 away and a US CV with no fighters moving 3 to attack the lone transport. This will probably never happen in a game but at the same time I don’t want to give CVs any added incentive to be used as attack units by themselves. If they move 3 in only non-combat then they can still move just as far as your proposing to be used as a fighter platform, which is their main purpose. If they can move 3 and attack then the only extra advantage these CVs have is that they can participate in combat themselves (all fighters associated with the CV can still attack just like before since no thing’s stopping the CV from moving 3 to that same space in non-combat). Does that rambling make any sense?

[Guerrilla Guy]

Maybe you guys are looking at it in the wrong sense… Fleets speeds were varied based on what they were travelling with… If you want to make “Non-combat Naval Moves” and “Combat Naval Moves” Then separate “Fleets” from “Ships”… That will introduce a whole new tactic to the game… “Convoys”(referring to Transports plus Escorts) can move fast, at the expense of “Search and Destroy” Moves in a territory… They just want to get to their destination without engaging… “Fleets” move entirely differently… They move all at 2 and cannot have this “3 move” stuff, but they gain advantages that individual units wouldn’t have (Search and Destroy, Preemptive Fire from Battleships, etc.)

ideas? or a total waste of a post?

GG

[Imperious Leader]

I don’t want US exploiting the 3 moves. What I’m envisioning is Japan having a lone transport 3 away and a US CV with no fighters moving 3 to attack the lone transport. This will probably never happen in a game but at the same time I don’t want to give CVs any added incentive to be used as attack units by themselves. If they move 3 in only non-combat then they can still move just as far as your proposing to be used as a fighter platform, which is their main purpose. If they can move 3 and attack then the only extra advantage these CVs have is that they can participate in combat themselves (all fighters associated with the CV can still attack just like before since no thing’s stopping the CV from moving 3 to that same space in non-combat). Does that rambling make any sense?

OK i am going along with this reasoning. So Lets incorporate the naval fighter concept and move forward. So cruisers and CV move 3 in non combat… good.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

Why do we need to denote CVs with US markers? All CVs should be represented the same.

I was thinking they are allowed to build normal (stronger) CVs if they wanted to.

If the enemy AA gun hits a bomber with LRA, it should at least be registered as a full hit on a fighter escort unit (=10 IPCs). Not half an escort unit. Where are you getting 5 IPCs from?

I don’t know the scale of things. I was thinking an escort unit has less planes than a fighter unit. I was also thinking escort units cost less than full blown fighter unit.

I don’t think it should apply to regular combat, but it’s still on the drawing board.

Thats fine. I don’t think planes needs to be detected in regular combat either.

[tekkyy]

@theduke:

Against air units:
No more than 3 AA guns may fire in any 1 territory. Anytime an enemy air unit flies over a territory, either in combat or non-combat move phases, the AA guns may fire against those air units. Each AA gun (up to 3) rolls 1 die to target an air unit. For every roll of a 1 or 2 an air unit has been targeted. For every successful target roll roll another die to determine the number of air units shot down. An air unit is shot down on a roll of a 1.

The AA piece can shoot in non-combat now?
Imperious Leader sugguested adding the “damaged but not killed” effect for SBR. Should we have it for normal combat as well?
I still think prefer AA to shoot more than once, maybe up to 2 air units can be targetted? I think historically flak fire a lot and only hit sometimes. (At the moment flak fire rarely and only hit sometimes.)

Against amphibious assaults:

Thats cool.

[theduke]

As much as I don’t want to have a big list of NAs in phase 1, I think everyone can agree that a must have in any historical edition of A&A is a non-aggression treaty betwen Russia and Japan. I don’t like the OOB rules for non-aggression treaty NA. I don’t like how it’s listed as a Russian NA as if Russia shouldn’t have the same penalty that Japan gets for breaking it. I also don’t like how the penalty is that 4 infantry magically pop out of nowhere. I don’t know how this will be proposed as an optional rule yet, but it won’t be as a NA for either Russia or Japan. Here is a proposal and I need your opinions on it:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/410413awp.html

The first time in the game that either nation performs any of the following acts that nation is considered to be the aggressor in breaking the treaty:

1. When either nation conducts combat in (or flies air units over) a territory either controlled by the other nation or of the others nation’s color (Both parties will respect the other’s territorial rights).
2. When either nation moves any number of their units into a territory of the other nation’s color during the non-combat move phase (Both parties will remain neutral, even due to conflict with any 3rd power).

Once the treaty is broken the first time and the penalty is assessed to the aggressor, none of the treaty rules no longer apply.

Penalty: Immediately after the aggressor breaks the treaty (i.e. before any combat, if broken due to rule 1), the other player involved in the treaty rolls 2 dice. The lower number of the 2 rolls is the number of the aggressor’s infantry that are immediately taken from the board and replaced by infantry of the other nation involved in the treaty. These infantry represent defecting units due to decreased morale. The infantry that defect are the ones that are the fewest number of spaces away from the capital of the nation receiving the infantry. If infantry from more than 1 territory qualify, then the player receiving the infantry chooses which infantry defect. These infantry are converted to the other nation’s color and these infantry are placed in the territory of that nation that is the fewest number of spaces from where they came from.

[Imperious Leader]

OMG thats harsh!  I dont think thats historical either. Can it just be something like:

System 1:
The Soviets cannot attack Japan untill germany and italy are defeated.

If the Japanese decide to attack all soviet troops gain a +2 combat modifier against japans pieces = to the number of rounds rolled on a d6.

System 2:

Each nation has specific VC that it needs to win and Japan has no VC in Soviet territory ( so no incentive to invade)
this would presumably be based on historical victory conditions.

System 3:

NA form–- All attacks by either the soviet or japanese player (breaking the non-aggression treaty) results in the other side awarded with 4 infantry to be immediatly placed in attacked territories… or varient 2… roll d6= number of free infantry placed in this territory.

System 4:

Use Anderssons NA for this.

[theduke]

I can’t find Andersson’s rules. Can you repost them here?

If the Japanese decide to attack all soviet troops gain a +2 combat modifier against japans pieces = to the number of rounds rolled on a d6.

How is this any more realistic than what I proposed?

I like the idea of giving ‘an out’ to either side… Russia can break the treaty without penalty if all red territories+Germany+Southern Europe are all Allied occupied at that time. Japan can break the treaty without penalty if all yellow territories+China+Sinkiang+India are all occupied by the Axis at the time of breaking the treaty.

[theduke]

How about this:

3 categories of optional rules. If player’s decide to use all rules in the same category, then the game will maintain approximately the same balance.

1. National Unit Advantages
   (I don’t need to go through them again)

2. Economic Advantages
   a) Lend-Lease
   b) Italian Forces

3. Political Advantages
   a) Russian/Japanese Non-Aggression Treaty
   b) Neutral Aid

I’ve already discussed all the other advantages except the last one. Neutral Aid= If either the Axis side or the Allied side controls all the IPCs from the adjacent territories to any of the following neutral territories, then the nation that controls the majority of those IPCs gets 1 additional IPC per qualifying neutral territory.
Neutrals contributing aid:
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey

[Imperious Leader]

How is this any more realistic than what I proposed?

I like the idea of giving ‘an out’ to either side… Russia can break the treaty without penalty if all red territories+Germany+Southern Europe are all Allied occupied at that time. Japan can break the treaty without penalty if all yellow territories+China+Sinkiang+India are all occupied by the Axis at the time of breaking the treaty.

Ok during the war neither side defected to the “other side” also in 1939 soviets led by Zhukov clashed with the Kwantung Army in northern Manchukou with the japanese being the aggressor… Result: The japanese were totally smashed to pieces and learned an important lesson that they would never repeat… they decided not to go with the northern strategy advocated by the army, instead they went for a conflict with the navies plan which was to surprise the US pac fleet and sink it hoping that they would sue for peace. Their is not way in hell that the japanese would choose both courses of action… that would have led to national suicide. The army all ready had seen the fighting in China lead to a battle of attrition and to just open up another campaign in worthless land or the Russian eastern territories was basically the biggest waste of resources possible.

Your plan somehow removes up to 12 infantry ( does Japan even start with this?) and gives them to the Soviets? huh? why  defectors? This project has to be historical and based on what actually happened… optional rules could cover the “what ifs” but this idea of defectors is not at all what could have been remotely possible. Whats wrong with some of the other ideas>?

Andersson will post shortly… not to worry…

BTW the neutral aid rules have a few things as well…

Ill save that for another post.