AARHE: National Units (Phase 1)


  • @Micoom:

    I know, but I wanted to skip the NA…

    Oh I see. Why is that?
    So far National Units is about cost modifiers to model historic purchase trends.

    @Imperious:

    if anything let UK get cheaper battleships since they had the most modern battleships

    Which one is that? http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm sugguests US’s Iowa with the best weaponary and protection. Should it be cheaper because of “modern”? I thought its about mass production or efficiency.

    United States also sold 50 destroyers to UK in exchange for base rights. this was early 1941.

    Thats another point for UK cheap DD.


  • Losses and builds during WWII;

    DD
              Losses      Builds
    GER    50            17
    IT        84            6
    JAP    134          63
    UK      110          240
    US      71            349
    RUS    27            25

    AC
              Losses      Builds
    GER    0              2
    IT        0            0
    JAP    19            16
    UK      8              14
    US      11            141
    RUS    0              0

    BB
            Losses      Builds
    GER    7              2
    IT        1            3
    JAP    8              2
    UK      5              5
    US      2              8
    RUS    1              0

    Sub
            Losses      Builds
    GER    751          1337
    IT      84            28
    JAP    130          167
    UK      77            167
    US      53            422
    RUS    90            52


  • Here is an idea I have on the drawing board…

    1 national unit each… no fighters as national units though. instead, a separate category for national fighter advantages. each nation has a different advantage.

    National Unit NA:
    Russia=armor units
    Germany=subs
    UK=bombers? DDs? BBs? (still debating this one)
    Japan=infantry (advantage something like dug-in defenders and/or banzai inf)
    US= CVs (maybe transports if we can justify liberty ships as transport units)

    National Fighters NA:
    Russia= cheap fighters?
    germany= strategic dive bombers
    UK= spitfire, defend at 5
    Japan= kamikaze rules I explained before
    US= P-51, greater movement… what about conflict with LRA as tech?


  • What if instead of each nation having a fighter advantage we do this (these might be too similar however):

    National unit:
    Russia= tank (cheaper)
    germany= sub (cheaper?)
    UK= fighter (defend better and maybe cheaper)
    japan= infantry (defend better and maybe cheaper)
    us= CV (cheaper and move 3)

    National Special Attack:
    Russia=  Katyusha rocket launchers
    germany= blitzkrieg
    UK= enigma decoder
    japan= just kamikazes? maybe include kaitens and banzai inf as suicidal warfare? suicidal inf too similar to Russian advantage of sacrificing men?
    US= Amphibious Assault (marines)

    what are some unique tactics that Russia and US used during the war?


  • what did japan mass produce during the war?


  • @theduke:

    what did japan mass produce during the war?

    Compared to the other powers they didn’t really mass produce… But they came in 4rd in machine guns.  and 2nd in Reconnaissance aircraft and AC’s and 3rd in Submarines.

    So looking at the Machine Guns the Infantry option isn’t that bad!


  • National unit: ( these are just as you stated )
    Russia= tank (cheaper)
    germany= sub (cheaper?)
    UK= fighter (defend better and maybe cheaper)
    japan= infantry (defend better and maybe cheaper)
    us= CV (cheaper and move 3)

    This all looks good.

    National Special Attack:
    Russia=  Katyusha rocket launchers (+1 first strike on artillery)
    germany= blitzkrieg (each armor brings up one infantry +1 on attack, each plane brings up one armor on attack +1)
    UK= enigma decoder
    japan= banzai attack is a must +1 attack but must attack to the bitter end… no retreats
    US= Amphibious Assault (marines) +1 first round on invasions

    what are some unique tactics that Russia and US used during the war?

    Russia:
    They copied german tactics… they learn well from their masters but relied on numbers to grind down the opponent… quality was not the issue it was quantity. Also excellent fighters in poor weather and built up areas… turned quick battles into a quagmire of attrition

    USA:
    Installed great bomber campaign over germany…excellent logistics and supply system second to none. Used German tactics on land combat. marines looks promising


  • we can’t include banzai inf and not include kamikazes. kamikaze national special attack comes first IMO.


  • A kamakazi is a desperate attack… its not something the japanese should be doing unless they are going to lose. I know its fun… but historically they didnt throw away their lives with frivolous attacks w/o purpose. The style of combat has to be respectible… Banzai is derivitive of the concept of Bushido… its also somewhat a desperate attack but symbolizes the fighting spirit of the japanese warrior. I think kami should stick as a NA and not a specific type of combat method… it looks bad for japanese people in general because of its desperate character.


  • Kamikaze is quite major in numbers but Imperious Leader has a point that they wouldn’t use it until they were losing the war.
    But dug-in defenders also makes a defensive NA so its hard to say.

    The new “no retreat” idea for Banzai attack sounds good to me.

    But what happens to infantry powerful for Russia and Germany? I reckon more like this…

    Russia= tank (cheaper) = T34 , d6 dice number of 2 IPC infantries
    germany= sub (cheaper) = VII , d6 dice number of 2 IPC infantries
    UK= fighter (defend better) = Spitfire
    japan = fighter (cheaper) = Zero
    us= CV (move 3) = Essex

    So we let US have fast but just as strong carriers. But lets not make them cheaper as well??? If it was Essex Light Fleet Carrier but as least they need to build MORE of them to carry the same amount of fighter in the fleet.


  • Banzai is derivative of the concept of Bushido… its also somewhat a desperate attack but symbolizes the fighting spirit of the Japanese warrior.

    And kamikaze attacks aren’t a symbol of the fighting spirit of the Japanese warrior???

    A kamikaze is a desperate attack… its not something the Japanese should be doing unless they are going to lose.
    True for both.

    I know its fun… but historically they didn’t throw away their lives with frivolous attacks w/o purpose.
    True for both.

    Wikipedpia On Banzai Charge:

    Banzai charge is a term derived from the Japanese samurai spirit and ideology of not accepting the shame of defeat. Instead, it is considered honourable to do a last desperate charge at the enemy and perish together with them instead of dying in cowardice.

    Banzai is literally translated as “Ten thousand years” but more accurately “Long Live” and was a Japanese motto during the war. They honour their emperor by shouting “Banzai”, meaning “Long live the emperor”.

    The Kamikaze strategy used in World War II is a good exemplification of the banzai charge, although the banzai charge is used mainly for infantry troopers.

    Banzai infantry, kamikaze fighters, kaiten subs are all forms of suicide attacks, but utilizing different units to do so. Kamikaze attacks were the most effective, and therefore famous form of the attack during WWII. The only question in my mind is whether to have just kamikaze attacks as the advantage or all forms of suicide attacks.

  • Moderator

    Banzai Charges actually made it sometimes… Kamikazi’s never did… plus you have to find a “extremely” justifiable reason to “waste” a 12 IPC unit…


  • Banzai Charges actually made it sometimes… Kamikazi’s never did…

    Really? I didn’t know that.  :?

    Here is some of the info I found on Wikipedia:

    Although kamikaze attacks could not stop the Allied advance the Pacific, they inflicted more casualties and delayed the fall of Japan for longer than might have been the case using only the conventional methods available to the Japanese Empire.

    In the modern era, human-wave attacks are often, but not always associated with mass armies of untrained soldiers. When Nazi Germany attacked Soviet Union, the Soviets used the tactic against both advancing and entrenched enemy soldiers. Usually the Red Army soldiers were told to charge directly in a wide berth to strike every possible point in the German lines. In some battles the Soviets defeated the Germans after sustaining battle losses much higher than the German losses. The tactic had also been used by Soviets during the Winter War against Finland and before during the Polish-Soviet War and Russian Civil War. The effectiveness of the tactic during Winter War poor, and after it and during the war agaisnt Germany, Soviet leadership realised that human wave combined with no retreat policy is not most effective.


  • National Units:

    Russia= Once per turn Russia may purchase 2 armor units and place them in Moscow for a total of 8 IPCs.

    Germany= For every IC where no surface naval units are built in a given turn, 1 sub may be built there for 6 IPCs.
    (From Wikipedia: Having no hope of defeating the vastly superior Royal Navy decisively in a surface battle, the German High Command immediately stopped all construction on capital surface ships save the nearly completed Bismarck class battleships and two cruisers and switched the resources to submarines, which could be built more quickly. Though it took most of 1940 to expand the production facilities and get the mass production started, more than a thousand submarines were built by the end of the war.)

    UK= All fighters purchased and placed in London cost 8 IPCs. All UK fighters get +1 defense in London.

    Japan= Once per turn Japan may purchase 3 infantry units and place them in Tokyo for a total of 7 IPCs. For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.
    (This is to represent all of the following: Japanese Warrior Code, Banzai attacks (ironically used on defense), dug-in defenders and Japanese jungle warfare.)

    US= All US aircraft carriers cost 14 and move 3 in the non-combat move phase.
    (Essex carriers were rushed into production and they were fast.)

    This is pretty balanced…
    Russian, UK, US advantages worth about 1.5+2.5+1.5 (per turn, respectively) = 5.5
    German and Japanese advantages worth about 3+2.5 = 5.5


  • Was planning to playtest these ideas before posting them, but maybe you have some impressions right away. This is strictly historical stuff, so Japanese have much less than Germany but this is due to the historical facts of Japanese types being inferior to American. Kamikazes and the like rules could be added to give the Japs a boost.

    Note that air combat values is for one round air-air combat in both SBR and ordinary combat, normally fighters hit on a 2 and bombers on a 1. Night bombing in SBR reduces these values by 1 and also 1 less IPC damage. Subs attack convoy zones, causing one die of IPC damage. My house rules also uses the following base costs: 
    Battleships: 20 IPCs. Destroyers: 10 IPCs. Submarines: 7 IPCs.
    Bombers: 12 IPCs. Fighters: 8 IPCs. ICs: 12 IPCs.

    /Lynxes

    Tech rules:
    *The original rules for technologies are replaced by the following rules.
    *To play with these rules, you need the units from an earlier Axis&Allies edition. Each side has 7 high-tech units that are built as separate units of the same kind, below are listed the values that differ from the original values, the unit sculpt used to represent the unit and the turn that the unit first may be built. The type of unit not listed below is represented by units from the other edition (i.e. ordinary Soviet tanks are represented by earlier A&A ed. tanks). Each side starts with 3 high-tech units, choose standard units of the unit type to be replaced at start, starting with Allied side. If bidding for sides, extra high-tech unit replacements may be bought for 2 IPCs each. Note that only units available turn 1 may be chosen in this way. For internet play, use control markers next to high-tech units (except: Me-262s and Type XXIs).

    Soviet Union:
    T-34 tank: cost 6 IPCs, combat 4/4, rev. ed., turn 1.
    Sturmovik fighter: cost 7 IPCs, if enemy has tanks: attacks on a ‘4’, functions as a bomber in air combat (fires on a ‘1’, no air combat when defending, no CAP, no escort to SBR), rev. ed., turn 1.

    Germany:
    Ju87 Stuka fighter: attacks on a ‘5’ first round of land combat, functions as a bomber in air combat (fires on a ‘1’, no air combat when defending, no CAP, no escort to SBR), rev.ed., turn 1.
    Ju88 bomber: may function as a fighter when escorting or intercepting Night bombing SBR missions and then fire on a ‘2’, subtract one from IPC damage caused, rev.ed., turn 1.
    Panther tank: cost 7 IPCs, combat 4/5, rev.ed., turn 3.
    Me262 jet fighter: cost 10 IPCs, defence: ‘5’, fires on a ‘3’ in air combat (on a ‘2’ at Night), mark w. control marker under earlier edition fighter (internet: use “destroyer” sculpt), turn 5.
    Type XXI submarine: cost 9 IPCs, attack: ‘3’, add one to IPC damage caused, cancels the first enemy hit to a sub-only force, mark w. control marker under sub (internet: use “bomber” sculpt), turn 5.

    UK:
    Lancaster bomber: cost 14 IPCs, attack: ‘5’, add one to IPC damage caused, rev.ed., turn 1.
    Mosquito fighter: cost 10 IPCs, range 6, fires on a ‘2’ when escorting or intercepting Night bombing SBR missions, may not land on carriers, early ed., turn 2.

    Japan:
    Zero fighter: cost 10 IPCs, sea zones: ‘3’ in air combat and attacks on a ‘4’ first round, rev.ed., turn 1.
    Yamato battleship: cost 22 IPCs, combat 5/5, fires first fire if enemy has no air units, rev.ed., turn 1.

    USA:
    Lightning fighter: cost 10 IPCs, range 6, sea zones: ‘3’ in air combat, may not land on carriers, rev.ed., turn 1.
    Flying fortress bomber: cost 15 IPCs, fires on a ‘2’ in air combat (can’t hit at night), rev.ed., turn 2.
    Escort carrier: cost 10 IPCs, defence: ‘2’, carries one fighter, negates sub special abilities like destroyer if carrying a fighter, early edition, turn 3.


  • National Units:

    Russia= Once per turn Russia may purchase 2 armor units and place them in Moscow for a total of 8 IPCs.

    Germany= For every IC where no surface naval units are built in a given turn, 1 sub may be built there for 6 IPCs.
    (From Wikipedia: Having no hope of defeating the vastly superior Royal Navy decisively in a surface battle, the German High Command immediately stopped all construction on capital surface ships save the nearly completed Bismarck class battleships and two cruisers and switched the resources to submarines, which could be built more quickly. Though it took most of 1940 to expand the production facilities and get the mass production started, more than a thousand submarines were built by the end of the war.)

    UK= All fighters purchased and placed in London cost 8 IPCs. All UK fighters get +1 defense in London.

    Japan= Once per turn Japan may purchase 3 infantry units and place them in Tokyo for a total of 7 IPCs. For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.
    (This is to represent all of the following: Japanese Warrior Code, Banzai attacks (ironically used on defense), dug-in defenders and Japanese jungle warfare.)

    US= All US aircraft carriers cost 14 and move 3 in the non-combat move phase.
    (Essex carriers were rushed into production and they were fast.)

    This is pretty balanced…
    Russian, UK, US advantages worth about 1.5+2.5+1.5 (per turn, respectively) = 5.5
    German and Japanese advantages worth about 3+2.5 = 5.5

    +++++++this is more like it! add this to the draft.


  • Lynxes:

    thanks for posting that. You got some good ideas. I like the nation specific units BTW and i think something along the lines of what you have can be looked at in phase two.


  • @theduke:

    in Moscow…in London…in Tokyo

    Nice. I like restricting National Units to locations when appropriate for even more realism.

    But only Japan has infantry power now? I thought we wanted Russia and Germany to have it.

    @theduke:

    For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.

    Wait are we mixing up between National Unit and National Advantage?
    Are we still doing the Banzai attack?
    I actually like the +1 attack but no retreat. I think no retreat is important to model the spirit!
    I even think give them have +1 defense too.
    Again for modelling the situation I think Japan can’t use it unless they are outnumbered.

    US= All US aircraft carriers cost 14 and move 3 in the non-combat move phase.
    (Essex carriers were rushed into production and they were fast.)

    I know they are fast. But I am not sure they are “faster” at 33 knots.
    Strangely, googling “fast carriers” I actually saw reference to Japanese.


  • “For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.”

    +++ i think on this Japan should instead get :    once per turn the Japanese player can elect a banzai attack and commit his infantry to attack with a +1 combat modifier, but must continue attacking untill he is destroyed or the attack suceeds. Secondly his infantry defending in his own territories on any islands (including Japan) gets a +1 defense modifier on the first round of combat.


  • i think the main point of this national unit thing is to have a cheap type of unit. so japan inf should be cheaper, at least some of them.

    banzai attacks were actually a form of defense, I think. I know it sounds funny because of the name. I don’t think banzai attacks were used to take new ground but a last desparate attempt to save the ground they were already on (i.e. they were on defense).

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 3
  • 5
  • 4
  • 7
  • 20
  • 2
  • 11
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

27

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts