THE BASIC TACTICS

As part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 & 1943 House Rules Expansion, Naval Mines are being play testet during the 2023 Autumn & Winter Axis & Allies gaming season.

Final results will be posted here.

Feel free to play test on your own. Rules are attached below.

Captain

1. G40 Naval Mines.pdf

Here is where I got this idea above:
@Baron:

@aequitas:

I would not play around with the cost and the abillity of the Bmbrs.
I would rather consider a change of Naval surface ships abilities like:

Cruiser’s and BB’s have the ability of AA guns for one round.
After that regular combat.

What do you think?

I play with 1 preemptive AA shots per Cruiser and Battleship.
It is not enough IMO.

I like this new idea from Wittmann of a basic A2 boost to A4 if paired 1:1 with 1 Fg or 1 TcB.
Better reflect some limitations of Bomber, specially against Naval.

In my mind this gives:
StB A2-4 D1 M6-7 cost 12, pairing 1:1 with Fg or TcB gives +2 Attack.
TcB A4 D3 M4-5 cost 11, no need for combined arms.

I forgot, but I also suggested these straighter ones, no combined arms:
STRATEGIC BOMBER
12 IPCs A3 D2 M6 +1M with AB
SBR Damage 1D6+2

TACTICAL BOMBER
11 IPCs A4 D3 M4 +1M with AB
TBR damage 1D6

@Baron:

@theROCmonster:

That’s understandable. If they changed bombers to 2 attack than the way defense rules work on Strategic bombing runs would be fine. Have Strategic bombers be used for bombing more than threat projection. They still can have threat projection because of their range, but they wouldn’t be the god unit they are now.

In that case, I would live with a more strategic target oriented bomber:

Tactical Bomber
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6
Attack 1

Strategic Bomber:
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 2D6
Attack 1

Fighter
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 10
SBR:
Attack 2
Defense 2

Such Strategic bomber should combined arms with Fighter to give an increase range to re-enact long range escorting mission. Just suppose that pairing with StBs is like adding drop tanks to Fighter to get an increased range for such mission. When starting from Air Base, this can simulate special long range aircraft such as P-51 Mustang.

Strategic Bomber:
Attack 2 or 3, if paired 1:1 with Fg
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6 +2
Attack 1
**StB gives to a matching Fg starting from the same TTy +1M bonus when attacking the same TTy, in NCM Fighter can reach  another TTy than escorted StB.

Strategic bomber gets +1A bonus from a matching Fighter.**

Fighter
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4-6, +1 with Air Base and +1M paired 1:1 with Strat Bomber
Fighter gives to a matching StB +1A bonus.
Cost 10
SBR:
Attack 2
Defense 2

This last idea coming from this post:

@Baron:

Thinking about a way to make StBs and Fgs complementary units, here is a special combined arms:
StB gives to a matching Fg starting from the same TTy +1M bonus during SBR phase only.
Fg gives to a matching StB +1A bonus.
That way, Fg starting from AB would do long range escorting mission.

And tactical bomber can have high attack value and a special Blitzkrieg attack with Tank:

Tactical Bomber
Attack 4 * first strike, paired 1:1 with Tank
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6
Attack 1
*Blitzkrieg : if paired 1:1 with Tank, gets a single first strike attack on first combat round.

@nerquen:

@Black_Elk:

Here is an example, say you are attacking with 1 ground unit, 1 fighter and 1 bomber. After the first round of combat the ground unit is destroyed, but the fighter and bomber remain. In the second round of combat, is the bomber allowed to participate as fodder for the fighter, even though the HR does not allow the bomber itself continue attacking? Or is the bomber considered no longer part of the fight, ie it is not longer involved in the combat cannot take any enemy hits?

For simplicity, I was thinking not to put any further restrictions on a combat once it started. The HR would really just restrict the number of bombers that one can bring into a battle, but once the battle started it would follow OOB rules. So bombers can be taken as casualties at any chosen time and can also continue battle even if all land units are dead already. This is mostly to allow game play with tripleA without any modifications.

But with little modifications to the game xml file, one can modify bombers such that their attack value is 0, but if they are combined with any land unit or a warship in 1:1 ratio they get +4 attack bonus. It is much more realistic this way and gives space for interesting tactical decisions. Suddenly taking fighters as casualties before last few armors and artilleries supported by bombers is better for maximizing attack power. One would still be allowed to take bombers as casualties at any chosen time, I think that is ok. I will attach an xml file here soon.

Here https://www.dropbox.com/s/2mbsptvi4jxi1ut/World War II Bombers HR.zip?dl=0 you can download the map with bombers having attack value of 0, but if paired with any land unit or a warship* in 1:1 ratio their attack increases to 4. Just unzip the downloaded zip file into maps subfolder of your tripleA installation. Once you launch tripleA select “World War II Global 1940 2nd Ed. - House Ruled Bombers” from the list of available games. I would be interested in any feedback if you try it. You can PM me or post here.

@arwaker:

The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.

However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.

If there is no Air Base or Naval Base and having only the combined arms: giving +1 to attack if tactical bomber is paired to Fg or Tank, I agree there is not much additional strategic depth about it.
The fun thing is only about having more different sculpts Inside the Box.
From a collectors POV, it seems more interesting having more different units than fewer types but more of them. Isn’t it?
Chips are provided when you have many units of the same type.

Of course, it adds more specific rules. That’s the issue specifically treated by 1941 game.
Simpler and shorter for beginner.

1942 can be more develop with sculpts without extending the play-time or the whole map (not excluding a few changes, like the no-IPC value Islands in Pacific, for instance).
Global is made for hard-core players who have a lot of time.

From what I experimented, I could say that adding Mechanized Infantry and Tactical Bomber (and even a 5 IPCs’ Mechanized Artillery (assault Gun) and 9-10 IPCs Escort Carrier, HBG sculpt) can provides a deeper experience and feel of WWII at a strategic level without having to plan for a 2-days event.

Although, your focus on increasing “strategic depth”, makes we think about the two game mechanics brought to hit directly planes. And in this perspective, one seems better compared to the other.
The one I introduced in my opening post is better because it allows a specific unit (Fighter), a specific capacity: targeting enemy’s plane first (costlier target), while Tactical Bomber also received his specific capacity (being a better hitter on ground targets, but not necessarily on costlier targets).

The other way of creating somekind of dogfight between planes is to allow “1” or “2” rolled by aircrafts to destroy enemy’s.
The mechanic can work but doesn’t seems to increase the strategic depth as much as the former.
Fighter and Tactical have similar abilities, (carrier operation, regular hit, special roll) one have more of this and the other less of that (Fg on “1” or “2” / TcB on “1” only, cannot intercept in SBR).

Do you agree on this last point?

Here is a complete roster with a different Fighter unit (A2 D2 M4 C6) combined with an entirely 3 planes Fleet Carrier for either Fighter or Tactical Bomber units.
Even with a radical change in cost, I think it brings a much better interactions between units and mainly aircrafts from a gameplay perspective than the one I suggested in the opening post and poll of this actual thread.
You should take a look.
Baron Munchhausen’s G40HR Roster for 3 planes carrier & 6 IPCs 1914 Fighter
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1370798#msg1370798

@Der:

I would add a level of strategy, which I’m all for. Love strategy.

Why not say everyone can transfer up to 25% of their income to an ally during their purchase unit phase?  The 2:1 loss of production would not motivate me to do it, ever. If I’m the UK and have 40 IPC’s, instead of sending them to Russia so they can have 2 Russian fighters, I’m going to still buy 4 UK fighters and fly them over there. But say I could just transfer 25% over there. (10 ipcs) I would do that and Russia would get the fighter faster because they could buy their own and put it out on Russia with the money, instead of waiting for UK to put out fighters, then fly them over next turn.

@toblerone77:

What about just charging a fee plus the unit cost? For example, the U.S. could build a British destroyer plus a fee of say +2/3 IPCs. The question would be where placement would be allowed. You could in the case of G40, that could be on territory adjacent to a convoy zone. In other versions it could be the nearest industrial complex.

Whether you loan IPCs or have an ally build the unit for you the principal is the same.

It may also be reasonable to implement a system where a die roll is made by the enemy to destroy the convoy shipment. Example: The U.S. builds two tanks to send to Russia. Germany then rolls two dice at 1. Germany rolls a one and a two. One tank is destroyed en route.

Either of those might work, and still be preferable to me, over a scheme that only encourages multination stacks on defense.

I’m open to finding new ways to get a real Loan phase going

@crusaderiv:

My point is if you are gonna make the torpedo bombers youre gonna only have them availible for certain countries simply
Yes of course. Only UK and USA can get torpedo bomber.
Same thing for the dive bomber. Only Germany, USSR, Japan and USA may built this kind fo unit.
Japan has both at the beginning of War II.

It’s why I decided group them as tactical bombers.  That way everyone has a use for them.

The destroyers came with the Central Powers set which is sold out and as far as I know, Jack does not plan to make anymore right now. You may find some on Ebay or here, but there are none left on Fair Play Games…

Also, if Germany were attacked all the defending infantry would be at +3 wouldn’t they?  (e.g., +1 for VC ID and +2 for IC ID).  We weren’t playing with that either.

yes thats correct on the first round only.  I do know that artillery defending fire in the first round as preemptive.

Attacking Battleship, Destroyer (and optional unit Cruiser) may choose to roll for offshore bombardment.
Offshore bombardment is limited to one roll for every four offloaded land units. Each ship performing
rolling for offshore bombardment increases Infantry or Airborne Infantry’s attack by 1 on a 1-to-1 basis.
Defending Infrastructure Defense performs offshore bombardment against ships rolling for offshore bombardment
or enemy Transport. The procedure is the same as Anti-Air [ on page 8]. Each Infrastructure
Defense increases Infantry’s defense by 1 on a 1-to-1 basis.

One thing on invading mountain terrain or small islands you can only invade with 2 land units.

Land units must stop on entering desert, snowy, or mountainous terrain. Tank (and optional unit Mechanized
Infantry) may not blitz through them. Defending land units in snowy or mountainous terrain have defense
increased by 1 in first cycle of combat. Small territories such as Gibraltar cannot be occupied by more than
2 units and cannot be attacked by more than 2 land units.

It should actually read small islands and territories. The SMALL islands are the obvious ‘groups of dots’

Midway
Hawaii
Solomons
Marchall islands
Azores
Malta
Okinawa
Aleutians

not Indonesia or Borneo or ceylon etc…