Technology
a) Radar
b) Rockets
c) Super Subs
d) Long-Range Aircraft
e) Jet Fighters
f) Heavy Bombers
G) jet bombers?
I) A-bomb?
K) long range subs?
National Units ( i think a choice from a list with an equal balance of axis and allied hardware)
a) Russian T-34’s
b) German XX1 Class U-boats (walter uboats)
c) British Destroyers (need to change- specific DD?)
d) Japanese Kamikazes
e) US Fast Carriers (change- specifics?)
f) Tiger Tanks?
Early 1942
a) Russian Winter
b) Second Happy Time
Foreign Aid
a) Lend-Lease
b) Italian Forces
Non-Aggressive States (maybe change?)
a) Soviet-Japanese Non- Aggression Pact
The Soviet Union and Japan are not at war when the game begins. Soviet Union cannot attack Japan until Germany and Italy are defeated, while Japan cannot attack until Greater China,India and Austrailia are defeated.
b) European Neutral Aid
Neutral Aid
Germany can receive up to 5 IPC at the beginning of his turn from Switzerland (1) , Spain (2) ,and Sweden (2). In the case of Sweden, aid commences and lasts as long as at least one axis controlled/allied nation borders these nations. If at any time the allies capture Norway, and Finland aid from Sweden is ended.
6)Political Affliations:
A) Stalinist Xenophobia
U.K. and U.S. units may not occupy, move through, or fly over territory controlled by the U.S.S.R… Also, U.K. and U.S. naval units may however share the same sea zone with U.S.S.R. naval units.
b) Joint Strike: Once per game UK and USA get to perform their movement and combat together in one specific territory. This is performed during either turn, but the same territory cannot be attacked by the second allied nation on their own turn.
Opinions? Chnage any names?
I still don’t see why Russians get a defensive bonus! Do Russians actually fight better in the snow than they do in perfect conditions?
Yes they represent the Soviet Siberian army with specialists in winter fighting! they know how to dig in an defend Moscow. They were not as good during clear conditions when the German tactics of blitzkreig could overwhelm the “shock armies” Shock troops were Stalins best soldiers overall.
I find that hard to believe if they do. They don’t fight better, its just that the harsh weather doesn’t affect them anywhere near it how it affects other armies. One could argue that Russians defend just as well, no matter how cold it is. Why then would the model have them fight better? Can they aim the gun better in the cold and howling wind? Can they run faster through the snow then they can on normal terrain? I don’t get why they should defend at a 3.
They have the proper equipment to sustain them in this type of enviroment. They knew ahead of time what happens in snow to tanks and other equipment and knew how to make the best of it… by experience… Germans had no such experience in Soviet Shock army tactics. They dont shoot better they emply better tactics to make the best use of the winter. The germans didn’t understand this.Those abilities to fight in the winter should be availible to the soviets as a defensive modifier to simulate the better employment of these resources.
I say we should just scrap the whole section on “early 1942” optional rules. We aren’t going to agree on it, I’m done making my case for it, it’s not that important since it only effects at most turn 1, and I think we can come up with a cooler optional rule than that anyway.
Agree? If so, other ideas for an optional section?
G) jet bombers?
I) A-bomb?
K) long range subs?
********this is only phase 1, remember? The list for every tech we can think of is coming up in phase 2, right?
National Units ( i think a choice from a list with an equal balance of axis and allied hardware)
*********the 2 units for the axis are just as good as the 3 allied units = balanced game. if we add more units, then the balance is thrown off.
The Soviet Union and Japan are not at war when the game begins. Soviet Union cannot attack Japan until Germany and Italy are defeated, while Japan cannot attack until Greater China,India and Austrailia are defeated.
********What about the idea of attacking whenever you have 3 times the IPC value of the defender in terms of ground troops? Russia should have to be on there guard even in the early part of the game.
Neutral Aid
Germany can receive up to 5 IPC at the beginning of his turn from Switzerland (1) , Spain (2) ,and Sweden (2). In the case of Sweden, aid commences and lasts as long as at least one axis controlled/allied nation borders these nations. If at any time the allies capture Norway, and Finland aid from Sweden is ended.
********* I think Spain and Sweden should give only 1 too. Reasoning: How many IPCs would they be worth anyway? Not more than 3 for Sweden. Sweden didn’t give more than 1/3rd of their economy to Germany. I think we should just leave it at 1 for simplicity. Also, this rule needs to balance Soviet/Japanese non-aggression. Germany collecting 5 IPCs is not balanced… favors the axis too much. Opinions?
A) Stalinist Xenophobia
U.K. and U.S. units may not occupy, move through, or fly over territory controlled by the U.S.S.R… Also, U.K. and U.S. naval units may however share the same sea zone with U.S.S.R. naval units.
*****This name is much better.
German XX1 Class U-boats (walter uboats)
Wasn’t the VIIC the most built sub in the war? If Germany is building a lot of these subs, including in early 1942, should it be the XXI?
Here’s an idea for the 6th section:
Unit Transportation (need a better name)
a) Railway (name?): 1 transport worth of ground troops (the number that can fit into 1 transport) may be moved in the non-combat phase from your capital to any other territory that is of your color and under your control and contiguously connected to your capital. (I know this doesn’t fit perfect into historical railways for both Russia and Germany, but it’s close enough for the simplicity it allows.
b) Air transports (name?): During every combat move phase, each nation may move 1 infantry from either their capital or major VC to a hostile territory no more than 2 spaces away. Combat is conducted as usual.
Ok a few ideas:
Strategic Redeployment (SR)
Rail movement: Each nation can move a number of units in the non-combat phase from your capital to any other territory that is of your color and under your control and contiguously connected to your capital.
Here is historical based capacity: from this we can make the scale of units smaller.
Strategic Redeployment
Each nation has a capacity to move units by rail/sea transport following the Non- Combat phase of the turn. During strategic redeployment/base changes no unit can be intercepted. During non combat you cannot move pieces into or out of territories/sea zones that contain enemy units. That is reserved for combat movement only. Land units specifically may redeploy from any contiguous territories controlled by the player and his Allies. Neutral nations cannot be used to “trace†connected land territories (e.g. Turkey). Redeployment to land territories separated across one sea zone is possible but each such transfer costs one SR points for each unit and is limited to the total number of transports you have in sea zones between the territories. The United States can SR units across more than one sea zone but only between the Eastern United States and United Kingdom and is also limited to the number of transports available in the North Atlantic. Units that are sent in excess of the transports can still be sent but cost two points each.
Example 1: Germany wants to send some units to Africa. Each transport in the Med. can send one SR across their sea into say Libya on a one to one basis (1/1).
Example 2: German transports in the Atlantic cannot send a SR into a land territory in Africa that does not have a common sea space between Western Europe and the western coast of Africa. Note: US deployment into England during the SR phase does require any transports to be positioned in the North Atlantic ocean on the 1/1 basis as described in the example with Germany.
The capacity for each nation is as follows:
Germany 9
Italy 5
U.S.S.R 6
United Kingdom 6
France 5
Japan 7
U.S.A. 10
China 4
Note: Non-Combat movement is only allowed through friendly territories, but includes just-captured territories.
German XX1 Class U-boats (walter uboats)
Wasn’t the VIIC the most built sub in the war? If Germany is building a lot of these subs, including in early 1942, should it be the XXI?
Ok as far as a major improvement of submarine capabilities (prior to nuclear subs) the walter Uboat was by far the best sub traveling at almost the same speed as destroyers at 16 knots compared to 7-8 knots underwater. This U-boat is developed as early as 1943 would have destroyed england. It wasnt introduced till Jan 1945.
G) jet bombers?
I) A-bomb?
K) long range subs?
********this is only phase 1, remember? The list for every tech we can think of is coming up in phase 2, right?
I though we are in phase two?
Neutral Aid
Germany can receive up to 5 IPC at the beginning of his turn from Switzerland (1) , Spain (2) ,and Sweden (2). In the case of Sweden, aid commences and lasts as long as at least one axis controlled/allied nation borders these nations. If at any time the allies capture Norway, and Finland aid from Sweden is ended.
********* I think Spain and Sweden should give only 1 too. Reasoning: How many IPCs would they be worth anyway? Not more than 3 for Sweden. Sweden didn’t give more than 1/3rd of their economy to Germany. I think we should just leave it at 1 for simplicity. Also, this rule needs to balance Soviet/Japanese non-aggression. Germany collecting 5 IPCs is not balanced… favors the axis too much. Opinions?
+++++it represents the ratio of what was sent in terms of value to germany. And it makes the allies consider going after the swedish income to deny Germany. My idea was to basically under phase two give the allies 15 IPC for lend lease aid instead of 10 ipc, because some of this aid has goto UK, while Italy gets 10 IPC to offset the income, now if Germany gets 5 IPC in aid the allies should get another 5 in aid to offset. Now germany can go after 15 IPC while the allies can go after 5 IP in aid.
Now on the issue of Soviet winter… please dont get discouraged… its a small thing to make up something that satisfies the problem of winter warfare.
Soviet Weather: In the second half of 1942 all land combat by the Axis players in the Russian theater is subject to a -1 attack modifier (never lower than one) during the combat phase.
ok is this better? we need something and you want only the germans to get the modifier… is this what you want? just modify my post to fit what you feel is best.
e) US Fast Carriers (change- specifics?)
Are we talking about light carriers or fast carriers or cheap carriers?
The Soviet Union and Japan are not at war when the game begins. Soviet Union cannot attack Japan until Germany and Italy are defeated, while Japan cannot attack until Greater China,India and Austrailia are defeated.
********What about the idea of attacking whenever you have 3 times the IPC value of the defender in terms of ground troops? Russia should have to be on there guard even in the early part of the game.
Hm…are we using hard limits for non-agression now?
@Imperious:
Strategic Redeployment (SR)
This new idea, I feel like keeping on it on a small scale.
G) jet bombers?
I) A-bomb?
K) long range subs?
What? I last recall A-bomb being OFF the table.
********this is only phase 1, remember? The list for every tech we can think of is coming up in phase 2, right?
I though we are in phase two?
There are too many disputed issues so I also think we are still in phase 1.
Now I’m thinking what might be better to add instead of strategic redeployment are the national victory conditions (as long as we can make them simple enough). What I’m thinking is just having the “minor” national VCs for this section. Can we post the ideas for all the possible minor national VCs (like Germany takes control of Africa/Middle East etc…) and see if we can use them for this?
German XX1 Class U-boats (walter uboats)
Wasn’t the VIIC the most built sub in the war? If Germany is building a lot of these subs, including in early 1942, should it be the XXI?
Ok as far as a major improvement of submarine capabilities (prior to nuclear subs) the walter Uboat was by far the best sub traveling at almost the same speed as destroyers at 16 knots compared to 7-8 knots underwater. This U-boat is developed as early as 1943 would have destroyed england. It wasn’t introduced till Jan 1945.
It sounds like Walter U-Boats fit the description well for Super Subs. I think VIIC better fits what we need from the massive number of cheap U-Boats under the national units section.
I though we are in phase two?
This topic is ‘Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition) Phase one proposal (draft)’ so I thought all the info presented here was for the phase 1 proposal.
+++++it represents the ratio of what was sent in terms of value to germany. And it makes the allies consider going after the swedish income to deny Germany. My idea was to basically under phase two give the allies 15 IPC for lend lease aid instead of 10 ipc, because some of this aid has goto UK, while Italy gets 10 IPC to offset the income, now if Germany gets 5 IPC in aid the allies should get another 5 in aid to offset. Now germany can go after 15 IPC while the allies can go after 5 IP in aid.
You bring up a good point. Neutral Aid from these 3 European nations sounds like it would fit better under the Foreign Aid section, rather than the Non-aggression Treaty section I had them listed in before. I might have work things around again or reword things.
Now on the issue of Soviet winter… please don’t get discouraged… its a small thing to make up something that satisfies the problem of winter warfare.
Soviet Weather: In the second half of 1942 Â all land combat by the Axis players in the Russian theater is subject to a -1 attack modifier (never lower than one) during the combat phase.
OK is this better? we need something and you want only the germans to get the modifier… is this what you want? just modify my post to fit what you feel is best.
I don’t really want to introduce it anymore because it seems like we can come up with other things that will incorporate better into the game. You said it yourself, the game starts in April 1942; so why should we have Russian winter? It would be like having a rule for “destroyers for bases”. All that happened before the game starts so I think for the sake of realism we should not include it.
The 6 optional rule sections are a plan I had to introduce in phase 1. These will not replace anything in phase 2 and beyond. Latter phases will just expand the possibilities. I really want to stick to only 6 optional rule sections and 6 techs (techs being 1 of the optional rule sections) because it fits in well with a 6 sided die.
If you want to have a similar thing for phase 2 or 3, we could have something like 12 tech categories and a d12 die.
e) US Fast Carriers (change- specifics?)
Are we talking about light carriers or fast carriers or cheap carriers?
I want a name for the national unit advantage for the US where they pay 13 IPCs per carrier and they move 3. I guess that would be a class of fast carriers.
I hope there is historic basis for it.
Last I was upset about OOB’s “fast carriers” rule when they really meant “light carriers” which physically carried less planes, had weaker armor, and didn’t moved faster.
tekkyy is correct those jeep carriers or light carriers or escort carriers move slow only two. I thought it was needed in case we bumped up the fighter capacity of fleet carriers to 3 planes, while these small carriers should move 2 and carry 2 planes. one hit capacity.
The need is relevant for players like germany italy and japan, because they cant offord carriers and it would open up strategic options in the game to allow some cheap carrier with limited values.
Keep the regular carriers moving 3 in non combat. they take two hits etc…while jeep carriers take one hit.
Quote from: theduke
e) US Fast Carriers (change- specifics?)
Are we talking about light carriers or fast carriers or cheap carriers?
+++++++ that is for regular carriers only not CVL
Quote from: theduke
The Soviet Union and Japan are not at war when the game begins. Soviet Union cannot attack Japan until Germany and Italy are defeated, while Japan cannot attack until Greater China,India and Austrailia are defeated.
********What about the idea of attacking whenever you have 3 times the IPC value of the defender in terms of ground troops? Russia should have to be on there guard even in the early part of the game.
Hm…are we using hard limits for non-agression now?
++++++++It is not based on any historical idea. The rule has to reflect some idea that is realistic. The Soviet intention was to keep the treaty with Japan … untill the war was settled with Germany. Japan was in a similar position… they wouldnt touch this treaty w/o the US surrender or a major colapse of european hold on asia ( india, austrailia)
Quote from: Imperious Leader
Strategic Redeployment (SR)
This new idea, I feel like keeping on it on a small scale.
+++++++ yes very small… like 1/3 if what i posted
Quote
G) jet bombers?
I) A-bomb?
K) long range subs?
What? I last recall A-bomb being OFF the table.
+++++ its a mistake and also just placed for view in case their is something that can be done on this…
Quote
********this is only phase 1, remember? The list for every tech we can think of is coming up in phase 2, right?
I though we are in phase two?
There are too many disputed issues so I also think we are still in phase 1.
+++++++++Well yes we are in phase one… originally i thought we only had a certain agenda for phase one, but i suspect it has expanded.
People: This is a slow and deliberate process and may take months to complete… not to worry… if it is to succeed it has to be perfect and the world will be a better place because of what we accomplished. A design by commitee is not an easy task… at times people will be frustrated and feel its not worth the time or feel overwhelmed… the trick is to take things slowly so the proper cognigation can occur and a refined result can be discovered. We are all in uncharted waters with this and if we grow and stick together we will come out on top and create something very special… take your time!
US needs some national unit. what should it be and what would be an advantage that balances with the other national unit advantages?
Mech infantry… most of the US army infantry was mechanized, compared to others who either used horses or partly mechanized.
IMO we should look at treating new units like NA’s with a point system so say the axis and allies each get 25 points to decide which new units they want. some units will be better than others, but will offer each side historical units to add to the force pool.
Heres a proposed german list:
hers a list for uk
we just come up with a list of what these units could have as values and you just decide from this list what you want to spend your points on… that way each game can be different top favor different strategies.
If you just have like one unit for each player, then its kinda boring. the new units can be some sort of NA.
@Imperious:
++++++++It is not based on any historical idea. The rule has to reflect some idea that is realistic. The Soviet intention was to keep the treaty with Japan … untill the war was settled with Germany. Japan was in a similar position… they wouldnt touch this treaty w/o the US surrender or a major colapse of european hold on asia ( india, austrailia)
Yeah although I don’t prefer hard limits, soft limits like the IPC penalty to fight internal resistance mentioned earlier can be somewhat fantasy.
This new idea, I feel like keeping on it on a small scale.
+++++++ yes very small… like 1/3 if what i posted
Yeah particularly air transport it should be limited to 1 infantry only like you drafted.
at times people will be frustrated and feel its not worth the time or feel overwhelmed… the trick is to take things slowly so the proper cognigation can occur and a refined result can be discovered.
Yeah I do feel overhwelmed when I see a page of discussion between you two.
We are also discussing many issues in the same thread (as we finish off phase one).
***So I think lets not introduce new things but focus and settle on disputed idea. Then start phase 2 so we can discuss in structured threads again.
@Imperious:
Heres a proposed german list:…hers a list for uk…If you just have like one unit for each player, then its kinda boring. the new units can be some sort of NA.
A list :? Lets play with units in phase 2.
To finish off the US national unit I agree on both the cheap weak carrier and the mech infantry.
A list Lets play with units in phase 2.
To finish off the US national unit I agree on both the cheap weak carrier and the mech infantry.
I agree that the list sounds like way too much for phase 1 (this is a phase 1 topic).
As for finishing off US unit, I don’t want to have any national unit be weaker in any way than normal units. Even if there are other advantages that still make it worth buying, it shouldn’t be weaker in any respect. I want to draw this line for the sake of simplicity and the sanity of the player’s who want that simplicity out of phase 1.
We can do either US unit, but let’s remember the purpose of these national units rule… To create an incentive to follow the historical purchasing strategy. Russia built more tanks than anyone so we gave them tanks. Same for Germany, with subs. UK didn’t build the most DDs, but they built more than their fair share and I can’t think of any unit they built a large number of so I guess we’ll stick with DDs. Japan didn’t buy a whole lot of anything, but they did have cheap kamikaze fighter planes, so we’ll go with that. US built in OMG number of CVs! That’s why I went with CV as the unit. If we don’t have the CV as the US unit, then the US might not purchase a large number of carriers. Please just throw around more ideas for CVs and maybe something will stick.
As for infantry, I do like the idea of having mech infantry and marines as special abilities. If we include inf as the US unit, then I think we should have both advantages and call the advantage something like “specialized forces” or something. US infantry moving 2 isn’t worth much, except in China, but that’s unrealistic. US infantry shouldn’t move 2 in Asia. How to restrict that? Also, marines can attack in first round of amphibious assault.
Let’s develop ideas for both inf and Cvs as the unit and see which is liked more.
So some ideas for a US unit as CV…
(Cruiser hull) Light carriers: Cheaper at 12 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at normal speed. Probably attack on 1 defend on 2 as usual.
(Merchant hull, weak engines) Esort carriers: Cheaper at 10 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at 1Â :lol: Probably attack on 0 defend on 1 like a transport.
World Aircraft Carrier List http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/
(Cruiser hull) Light carriers: Cheaper at 12 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at normal speed. Probably attack on 1 defend on 2 as usual.
(Merchant hull, weak engines) Esort carriers: Cheaper at 10 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at 1 Probably attack on 0 defend on 1 like a transport.
Like I said before, I don’t think I’ll ever vote for a national unit advantage that has any disadvantage against the ‘normal unit’. US national unit CVs only carrying 1 fighter is a disadvantage against the normal CV.
