Porting 1914 rules to 1940 game



  • With very little effort, it would be possible to:

    1. have naval bases ‘mine’ sea zones against attacking enemy ships (not ships just passing through SZ, but attacking the ships in that SZ or assaulting the territory containing the naval base)

    2. let territories have ‘contested’ status (spicing up combat considerably and preventing IPC double-dipping effect), and

    3. adjust Cruiser move to ‘3’ (allowing players to consider buying one).

    I will try these rules out the next time I play.

    Would also really appreciate seeing these as options on TripleA (big hint to Veqryn!)…



  • Don’t forget the coastal artillery and air supremacy rules. I think those would be very useful as well.



  • The single round of attacks may make it too difficult for the Axis.  In addition, waiting until turn 4 to buy tanks is crazy…  😄



  • Given the more potent roll played by tanks in WWII and the more sweeping offensives, perhaps 2-4 rounds of combat?


  • Customizer

    No retreats/strafing attacks?

    Build loads of destroyers to soak up mine hits.

    Artillery spotting for artillery was no longer the principle role for air units, more emphasis on ground attack.

    Tanks were as powerful in defence as in attack.

    My suggested out of supply/surrender rules would come into their own on the eastern front.



  • @Flashman:

    Artillery spotting for artillery was no longer the principle role for air units, more emphasis on ground attack.

    What?


  • Customizer

    WWI - air units were about observing for the artillery.

    WWII - air units were about attacking ground units, transport networks and industrial production.



  • @Flashman:

    WWI - air units were about observing for the artillery.

    WWII - air units were about attacking ground units, transport networks and industrial production.

    Yeah I got that but when you said ‘Artillery spotting for artillery’ it threw me off.



  • Air supremacy would definitely have a role to play in the WW2 scenario:

    If one player has no planes in a battle, while the other does, their air units may choose their casualties (in effect, they gain the ‘targeting’ ability, and are free to choose juicy targets like tanks, or warships of choice).

    This would really punish players who fail to appropriately invest in their air force…!



  • Combat should not last only one round. Either it lasts 3 rounds or roll a die after each round of combat. (if the defender desires) if the die is equal to or less than the current round, comabt ends.

    So no combats last forever. The longer the defender holds out the higher chance combat will end and become contested.



  • @Make_It_Round:

    Air supremacy would definitely have a role to play in the WW2 scenario:

    If one player has no planes in a battle, while the other does, their air units may choose their casualties (in effect, they gain the ‘targeting’ ability, and are free to choose juicy targets like tanks, or warships of choice).

    This would really punish players who fail to appropriately invest in their air force…!

    Sounds great except the Axis have a billion planes compared to the Allies’ 10.



  • @BJCard:

    @Make_It_Round:

    Air supremacy would definitely have a role to play in the WW2 scenario:

    If one player has no planes in a battle, while the other does, their air units may choose their casualties (in effect, they gain the ‘targeting’ ability, and are free to choose juicy targets like tanks, or warships of choice).

    This would really punish players who fail to appropriately invest in their air force…!

    Sounds great except the Axis have a billion planes compared to the Allies’ 10.

    The Allies have the advantage in purchasing power, however. You’re not limited to the amount of planes the game starts with…



  • Right but in the dozens of Global games I’ve played, the US never has parity in airpower to Japan.  and Russia never has has parity in airpower to Germany.

    Russia would be dead meat and the US would have to purchase more air (not bombers but fighters), to the point of having less DDs/SSs fodder.



  • @BJCard:

    Right but in the dozens of Global games I’ve played, the US never has parity in airpower to Japan.  and Russia never has has parity in airpower to Germany.

    Russia would be dead meat and the US would have to purchase more air (not bombers but fighters), to the point of having less DDs/SSs fodder.

    What does the USSR have to lose? If my fighter selects infantry #1 instead of infantry #2 from your all-infantry build, are you really worried? And if the US needs to buy fighters over destroyers, I hardly think that that’s the end of the world for the Allies… the game is already stacked against the Axis, by most accounts.



  • Well, the Russians will likely have few artillery and tanks, so if Germany attacked the Russian stack with all its air (5 Fighters, 5 Tac Bombers, 2 Str Bombers) they could kill all the armor in the first round, greatly diminishing the Russian’s defensive capability (or if the Russians were on offence, the German air could kill its armor AND artillery, effectively neutering the attack and dooming Russia).

    With the US- Japan starts with 11 Fighters, 8 Tac Bombers, and 2 Str Bombers, a much bigger Navy than the US with its measly 5 Fighters, 1 Tac Bomber, and 1 Str Bomber.  And that’s if the US doesn’t send any aircraft to London.  Just in aircraft alone, the US would need 149 IPCs to achieve parity- or the first 3 full purchases (if Japan did a J3).  No cheap DD/SS fodder- no new carriers (Japan has 3 to the US’s 1).  Japan will always have air superiority and thus always target high value ships (BBs/CVs) first.

    I’m not sure where you get that the Allies have the advantage in Global 1940- all the bids are to the Allies (go look at the games being PBF), and many times the bid isn’t even enough.

    If you wanted to use the air supremacy rules, it could be good, but you’d have to change the entire setup to reflect the power aircraft now have.



  • I would like to see a ‘contested zone’ rule, but I agree that any tanks/mechs involved would need to push it to 2/3 cycles. My idea for air combat would need to involve the complexity of aerial warfare. So when setting up the battle board declare what a/c is being used for what.

    Choices being air superiority, patrol, ground attack and spotting. Ground attack and spotting a/c would have to make it through the patrol of defending a/c, and a win in the air superiority battle would give the winner the advantage when it comes to any dogfights between ground attack/patrol. Along with this the air battles would have to last as long as the battle below, so you would not lose your entire airforce in one dogfight.

    Kind of stolen different rules from different games. Spotting and air superiority from 1914, ground attack from D-Day, and patrol from Pacific.

    Would that work? Probably not. Am I deterred? Not in the least.



  • @Flashman:

    No retreats/strafing attacks?

    I think the player should have the same options as a real commander in a real war.

    1. Keep on attacking until the enemy is gone.
    2. Retreat back to a friendly territory
    3. End the attacking but stay in the territory and make it contestet.

    The player/Commanders decision must depend on what he benefits most from, and not be decided by a silly rule that basically is designed for game balance.



  • @BJCard:

    The single round of attacks may make it too difficult for the Axis.� Â

    I think the game turn’s should be appointet to specific seasons of the year, like summer and winter turns.

    During a winter turn, you can only roll dice for one round of combat, since cold and snow makes it difficult to bring supply to the frontline.
    During a summer turn you can roll dice for an unlimited rounds of combat, either until the enemey is gone, you want to retreat, or you want to end the combat but stay in the territory to make it contestet.

    Obviously we will need to draw a line cross over Europe to differ the Arctic zone from the Mediterreanean zone. Of course there are no winter effect when fighting in Egypt.



  • @Make_It_Round:

    Air supremacy would definitely have a role to play in the WW2 scenario:

    The OOB rules already covers this, since during an SBR you may commit escorting and intercepting fighters for one round of air-to-air combat.

    For the ground battle I think the current OOB system is fair enogh.

    For naval combat the OOB system let you park your fleet in the adjacent seazone and attack the enemy fleet with your aircrafts only, and later you can, if the enemy sunk, move your fleet in during NCM.

    So why should you be allowed to target the juicy units ? In the real war this units was camoflaged during day, and only moved by night. When they was killed by air, it was because the owner choose to sacrifice them by stupid moves. The same should go for this game.



  • @Flashman:

    WWII - air units were about attacking ground units, transport networks and industrial production.

    Agree, a fighter should not promote all artillery to hit on 4 or less in a WWII game.

    I think the OOB rule that let one artillery boost one matching infantry is a good one. I also think inf should att/def on 2/3 and art on 3/3, after all artillery barrage did inflict 70 % of the casualties in the real war. Artillery always was the King of the Battlefield.

    Tanks should att/def on 2/2, but a matching fighter or Tac should boost it to att on 3 or less. Aircrafts were the flying artillery to Tanks. Each Tank should also absorb, or negate, one matching enemy hit for every round of combat, since they in fact did create a shock wave and overrun/scatteled the enemy front, making break throughs, but not being the meat grinder as the inf/art combo. During WWII all attacks with armor got lesser casualties than the classic inf/art assault



  • @Flashman:

    Build loads of destroyers to soak up mine hits.

    If you read the 1914 OOB rules, one die is rolled to each specific ship, just as the fighters cant be fodder for the Bombers during AA-gun rolls.


  • Customizer

    Yes, I should have said hits in battle. But I also had in mind that destroyers have a special mine sweeping role.



  • Yes, and I should have guessed so.

    But then we would need a plastic piece seamine, like the one Table Tactics used to sell, and remove the mine after the Destroyer sweeped it.


  • Customizer

    HBG sell acrylic sea mine tokens:

    http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Naval-Mines-Marker-Acrylic_p_774.html

    But we needs them in both blue and red



  • @wove100:

    Given the more potent roll played by tanks in WWII and the more sweeping offensives, perhaps 2-4 rounds of combat?

    To reflect this, I would give tanks the power to break out into hostile territories on subsequent turns (instead of being limited to movements to friendly territories).

    That would help us get our blitzkrieg on, while keeping the unique ‘one-round’ combat structure intact (not many battles go beyond two or three rounds in regular A&A, actually).


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 23
  • 8
  • 11
  • 15
  • 3
  • 8
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

75
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts