A&A played using D10's

Fair enough! And thanks very much for the writeup. If anyone tries this again, consider adding:

2 German subs in SZ 10 (Greenland)
2 German subs in SZ 12 (west of Morocco)
1 Japanese carrier with 1 Japanese fighter in SZ 62 (east of Tokyo)

That’s generally what war is about, one country(s) wanting to expand and colonize, and other county(s) trying to stop it to protect their own interests. England was a super power at the time, it won multiple wars allowing it to expand the Empire. With expansion comes a strain of resources and uprisings (like that little conflict in the America’s). Although the English were on the winning side of WWII much of the Empire was disassembled afterwords.

The axis partners had spheres of interest prior to the start of WWII. Germany would dominate Europe, Italy the Med region, and Japan would get Asia and the Pacific. If things had continued to go the axis way,  those lines very well could have gotten blurred leading to conflicts among the axis. We all know that the Germans were capable of back stabbing their treaty partners.

Yea the Germans were late to the party, but did colonize in the Pacific and Africa prior to WWI. As a result of WW1 they lost those colonies. It is reasonable to believe that had the war progressed in their favor the Germans would want those lost territories back at some point. Would the Japanese just freely relinquish those Pac territories? Maybe some kind of trade off?

I’m no historian, but I don’t think the Japanese had any interest in expanding into Africa during the war(?). That would fall under German/Italian influence where the Euro axis were already fighting. I’m not saying the Japanese didn’t have the means to make landings in Africa, only that it would probably raise red flags to their axis partners if they did. Plus such a landing would have been a major strain on Japanese ambitions and holding they already had in their own back yard. They chose to keep the NAP w/Russia to continue their conquest of Asia and the Pacific (against the wishes of their strongest ally). I don’t think the Japanese would have looked at Africa unless they got the US to sign a treaty giving them complete reign of Asia and the Pac. Then they may have looked towards Africa or the Mid East???

With that said, I like that fact that if the US goes full tilt Europe the game allows you as the Japanese to venture to into Africa, and other European territories. Same for if the Japanese are getting pounded the Germans/Italians can make gains on the Pac side if they want. I wouldn’t like a set of rules that limit you to one map side or the other. Many people already complain about the Acme Chinese wall as it is.

If a house rule limited axis cross overs, or base certain moves on a domino type of effect, I think that you would also have look at putting in some US spending limits per theater as well.

I am currently working on a mod in TripleA that will do this. Germany owns Germany, Italy, Poland, and Libya. Britian owns, in addition to its regular territories: France, Northwestern Europe, Norway, Morocco, and Algeria. Russia owns Finland. Japan only owns Japan, Manchuria, Kangitsu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Caroline Islands, and Formosa. Britian owns all Japanese territories that weren’t mentioned here, except for Wake Island, Kwantung, and the Phillipines, which are owned by America.

On round 1, Russia and America are out. That means that they will get no money, they can’t move units, and they can’t be attacked, with the exception of China. Americans in China get to move, attack, and be attacked normally. Also, Japan gets to attack the Americans on Wake Island, the Phillipines, and (on J3 or J4) the navy off of Pearl Harbor (which will have at least 2 battleships). On Round 3, Russia gets to join. However, Germany gets to attack Russia in G2. I’m not sure whether to let America join in round 3 or 4. It depends on how much firepower Britain gets to wield in the Pacific and India initially, and how much they can maintain pressure on Japan.

Britain starts out with no cash to spend on B1 simply because they would have a mountain of cash from all the territories. Plus, the Axis need to have a chance to beat Britain back in the first few rounds. Germany and Japan will start out with 50 bucks (to represent their massive military buildup relative to the Allies.

Unit count in all Axis territories will basically double to give them much needed initial firepower. Germany’s navy will be beefed up, mainly in SZ5. There will be some extra navy in the Med just to make sure that they have a shot in Africa. To balance that, the subs off the coast of America will be removed, as well as the British navy off America as well (so Britain can’t storm Africa).

I already have some idea for the initial situation in Japan. They will start out with enough land units, navy, and transports to either gobble up Pacific islands or storm China, but not both. Plus, there is the Indian and Australian navies to deal with, not to mention the threat at Pearl Harbor.

My goal is to be semi-historically accurate, because some accuracy has to be sacrificed in order to make the game playable and fun, and also because the map wasn’t designed for historic realism.

One thing I’d like to do is to give Japan incentive to attack Pearl Harbor the turn that America begins to play, but I don’t know of a way to give Japan good incentive to. I think I might give Japan a reward for destroying the battleships in Pearl by giving them some money or units if they do.

I would appreciate and welcome suggestions for pretty much anything in here. I want to make this work and have it at least as balanced if not more balanced than 1942.2.

The basic reasoning is to give a broader range of options when assigning attack and defense to units. I see your point though. I think I’ll just be happy with using a d12 system.

This sounds interesting!  Can’t wait to see the final product.

@Cmdr:

Yea, but I just dont see tanks having the ability to hit bombers and fighter/tbombers.  Maybe tanks can select any ground unit they want to hit, but then to rebalance, prohibit them from hitting aircraft.

Yes, my intent was to limit the targeting to ground units. The other units not directed by the general could hit aircraft in the first round if the defender does not have enough fodder. The planes could be hit in the second round of combat by anything as normal.

I have play tested a revised artillery unit with improved defence capabillity. When an infantry defends along with an artillery, the infantry’s defens increases to 3. Artillery do still support infantry on attack. Remember that the artillery unit we have today were made when the armour unit still defended on a 2, in A&A Europe.

Artillery was mostly a defensive unit during WWII and proved to be the basic weapon of fighting tanks. However, in A&A, it is usually only used as an offensive unit, mainly to give large infantry formations more punch, not for anti-tank defences or counter-battery fire upon enemy artillery. The task of destroying enemy tanks and artillery batteries can also fall to attack aircraft, but unless they are already on patrol overhead, they are usually not quick enough to save friendly forces from damage. More often, ground-based counter-battery fire would suppress the enemy artillery batteries and force them to move, while aircraft would follow up later with a strike to destroy the rest of the enemy artillery.

Once Germany had been thrown on to the defensive in WWII the burden of combat shifted away from aircraft and tanks to the infantry and artillery. This were not because the former were not needed but rather their short supply forced reliance on the latter. However Germany had a shortage of artillery and therefore carried severe penalties. The inabillity to conduct effective large-scale counter-battery operations,as well as the loss of air superiority, was primary cause of German failure in both the West and the East. The early hopes of victory through mobility were replaced by an insatiable demand for the firepower of artillery.

@bugoo:

As far as tech goes I would propose a point system.  Assign a point value to each tech.  Purchase researchers as normal.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  You could assign different researches to different techs, but cannot change the tech they work on once purchased.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained said researchers are lost.  For example.

As US I want heavy bombers eventually, they are worth 30 research, so on turn 1 I purchase one heavy bomber researcher.  I roll and get a 3.  Now I need 27 more research to get heavy bombers.  On turn 2 I decide I want super subs, and since that tech isn’t as powerful I only need 15 research to get them.  I purchase 2 researchers, both for the subs as I want to sink japan’s navy now.  I roll a 2 for my heavy bomber researcher, leaving 25 left, and then roll a 4 and a 5 for my subs, leaving 6 left and with any luck on turn 3 i’ll get my super subs.

This will allow you to slowly work at a tech, rush for it, and choose to go for the good but expensive techs, or take an easier, faster, tech, or all of the above.  Now all nations may buy a heavy bomber researcher turn 1, but hey there is nothing wrong with that!

Hello.  I am digging up this as the tech lovers/haters discussions have started to heat up.

I re-read your thoughts and am wondering if you ever did anything more with this idea of a tech pointing system.  Did you ever come up with point targets for each tech?

The neat thing about this is that it can be easily tweaked with out re-writing the whole process.

Or you could go one step further and adjust the targets by country too.  For example, make super subs very low (read affordable) for Russian super subs or something like that, or even harder for the wealthy countries (like extra points for USA for Long Range)