No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.
Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition) Phase one proposal (draft)
-
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:
- Panzer Grenadiers
- SS panzers
- self propelled artillery
- dive bombers
- rail gun
- volkstrum infantry
- pocket battleship
- heavy tanks
hers a list for uk
- comandos
- light armor
- fortress unit
- battlecruiser
- spitfires
- heavy bombers
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 postedYeah 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.
-
What if instead of US unit being light CVs (using cruiser hulls) they are of the essex class?
Essex class fleet aircraft carriers
Displacement: 34,881 tons full load
Dimensions: 820 x 93 x 28.5 feet/250 x 28.3 x 8.7 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 872 x 147.5 x 28.5 feet/265.8 x 45 x 8.7 meters (“Long Hull” types: 888 x 147.5 x 28.5 feet/270.6 x 45 x 8.7 meters)
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 8 565 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 150,000 shp, 33 kts
Crew: 2,631
Armor: 1.5 inch hangar deck, 2.5-4 inch belt
Armament: 4 dual, 4 single 5/38 DP, 18 quad 40 mm AA, 61 single 20 mm AA ; single 20 mm AA replaced late WWII/postwar by 35 dual 20 mm AA
Aircraft: 100Concept/Program: Conceived as a Yorktown modified to include better underwater protection. As war drew near and treaties became less of an issue, the design was allowed to grow into a large, powerful, and versatile ship. The first units were initially scheduled for completion in 1944, but production was rushed due to war. These ships formed the mainstay of US WWII fast carrier forces, and the US postwar carrier fleet. All ships served in the Pacific from completion to the end of hostilities.
Essex class was the mainstay for US fast carriers. But they were also rushed into prodcution. Perhaps 1 way to simulate being rushed into production is to make them cheaper by 3 IPCs? Is there a better way to simluate being rushed into production? This would make them cost 13 IPCs and move 3 in non-combat. Essex CVs should still hold 2 fighter units max.
-
Essex class carriers were a front line job. They are nothing like light or escort carriers. They are akin to the japanese Akagi, Kaga, Shuikuku, or Shinano class carriers with about 80-83 planes. An escort “jeep” carrier had about 20 planes and was very slow. At leyte gulf the japanese task force would have sunk all of these because it could easily outrun them and sink them at will. Essex carriers were the best we had.
I agree we should finish phase one. ILL go with those rules for one cheaper ship per nation idea, if we can finish the thing off with some rules for neutrals and neutral aid. lets just finish off that for now. phase two can be worked on after.
On the aid idea i think germany should get the 5 IPC in aid ( nice round number) and the allies get another 5 IPC in land lease bringing the total to 15 IPC. The balance is a 10 IP bonus for italy as allready outlined.
So the allies 15 lend lease to uk and Soviets can fully be inderdicted by the axis, while the axis gets 15 ( 5 for neutral aid and 10 for italy)
Use dukes info on the units. but usa gets cheap bombers not cheap carriers.
-
Use dukes info on the units. but usa gets cheap bombers not cheap carriers.
What is the historical basis for this cheap bomber idea? Did you see that US built like 141 CVs vs. the other nations’ approx. 10 each? Should we ignore this huge difference when trying to simulate mass production? The difference with bomber aircraft is not that great compared to difference for CVs.
How about we put in writing our line of reasoning for choosing a national unit so we are not all over the place. Once we agree on the method for choosing the unit, actually choosing the unit will just be looking up facts (easy).
Here is my proposed logic for how we should pick the unit. Your opinions on this are needed.- Only 1 unit per nation (for perceived balance).
- A different type of unit for each nation (for perceived differences among nations as well as for enjoyment for players).
- If a nation made 1 type of unit disproportionately more than either their economy would allow or more than other nations produced them, then that should be its national unit.
- If a nation made more than 1 type of unit disproportionately more, then choose the unit based on how much more and also to not contradict number 2 above.
- If a nation didn’t produce 1 type of unit disproportionately more (significantly more), then choose the unit based on a unique flare or fame (like kamikaze planes).
-
- Only 1 unit per nation (for perceived balance).
- A different type of unit for each nation (for perceived differences among nations as well as for enjoyment for players).
- If a nation made 1 type of unit disproportionately more than either their economy would allow or more than other nations produced them, then that should be its national unit.
- If a nation made more than 1 type of unit disproportionately more, then choose the unit based on how much more and also to not contradict number 2 above.
- If a nation didn’t produce 1 type of unit disproportionately more (significantly more), then choose the unit based on a unique flare or fame (like kamikaze planes).
OK Soviets:
for them its about the fact that they were able to outproduce more infantry than germany ( manpower) and tanks and artillery as well as planes… but you only ask for one thing? This is tough because to be accurate they really outproduced in every catagory…
so then use the 2 tanks for 8 bucks thing
or roll one d6 = number of infantry that can be created at 2 IPC, so you roll 4 then Soviets get 4 infantry costing 2 IPC each.
Germany:
They were able to make alot of subs ( not because they were cheaper) but because it was an important function of their strategy against UK… so allow those 6 IPC subs… or use the Xeno rule of one free sub per turn?the other thing that was important to germany was tanks, so perhaps they can upgrade infantry by spending one IPC and the infantry becomes a tank at the end of the turn?
Another idea is for volkstrum units similiar to russian infantry idea= roll one d6= number of infantry at 2 IPC
uk:
on them i favor a break on battleships because thats what they felt would protect the islands
a second choice would also be cheaper fighters ( they out produced germany in fighters in 1940)
destroyers is not a good choice
Japan:
naval fighters or carrier based fighters would be something that could be done…
battleships could also be done… they loved their battlewagens or destroyers… transports i dont see this. sorry
USA:
Liberty ships ( transports) 2 for 14 IPC?
second choice is carriers or bombers they churned out many more carriers (escort class) than anybody else, but liberty ships were by far the easy choice for them…
USA airforce was comprised of a huge bomber force… a break on these would be good…
I feel each nation should have two things that are cheaper not just one.
-
Here is an idea that is very different from the topic at hand, but what if we have all air units that don’t move in combat phase in a given turn can move up to their max in non-combat, land temporarily, then move up to their max again? Would that be realistic? I think a fighter should be able to move 4, refuel, and move 4 again in the time of whatever a turn represents. This would be realistic and more fun. Opinions?
-
so that it can engage in more than one attack per turn?
-
No, this is all in the non-combat move phase only.
Combat with air units is the same.
If an air unit doesn’t move in combat move phase then in non-combat it can move it’s max (like 4 for fighter) land for literally 1 second (in game time) and more it’s max again.
It basically moves double in non-combat than in combat (but it has to land in middle of total movement so it doesn’t get unrealistic range if the enemy owns half the world)
This idea is same as Mideast Oil in OOB rules except doesn’t just apply to the mideast.
-
ok well to make things even easier… once a plane if finished with combat it should be able to go anywhere on the board. That way you dont even have to worry where it lands after combat . This makes all that easier? does it create imbalance?
-
I don’t think a fighter should conduct combat AND go anywhere it wants to. 1 or the other. The problem with saying that if it doesn’t do combat, then it can go anywhere in the world is that you could have a fighter move 10 spaces even if no territory it flies over is friendly. Is it realistic to have a fighter fly over 10 hostile territories in a row? No. It needs to refuel somehow. That’s why I think we need the 4 and 4 thing.
-
If a turn is 3-6 months and it takes one day to fly over germany from uk and drop bombs, then i dont see how a plane could not “get” to any other controlled territory during the time of ONE turn. Of course we should not allow planes to move over enemy territories during non-combat phase. Perhaps for balance issues each player can just have some set amount of units that they can move about under strategic redeployment rules.
-
attacking and going anywhere is too good. not good for game balance. you need non-combat restriction after combat.
i think german fighter should be able to take off from s. europe and attack trans-jordan only if they can land 1 away, like in egypt. how do you restrict the attack only if you occupy egypt if there is unlimited non-combat move after combat?
-
Germany:
They were able to make alot of subs ( not because they were cheaper) but because it was an important function of their strategy against UK… so allow those 6 IPC subs… or use the Xeno rule of one free sub per turn?We need some extra incentive so they can be a national unit advantage. What should the advantage be?
cheap (what we have now)?
attack at 3 (too powerful perhaps, also not relaistic)?
can be placed on board not just adjacent to IC but up to 3 spaces away from IC? (interesting, but we’d have to justify the realism)
other advantage?Japan:
naval fighters or carrier based fighters would be something that could be done…
battleships could also be done… they loved their battlewagens or destroyers… transports i dont see this. sorry
transports has been off the design board for some time. i’ll look into destroyers and battleships. that could be interesting.
-
Well then we should maintain those normal rules, except after combat all planes can move to any other controlled territory as long as they dont fly over enemy territory. That way they are not stuck in africa when you need them in france on the next turn.
Suggested Topics
