Cavalry Unit

Heroic Leaders

Soviet Union
Vasily Zaytsev Soviet Sniper during the battle of Stalingrad killed 225 soldiers including 11 snipers. Pick one Russian soldier. If garrisoned in a region containing a city Vasily may roll to shoot an enemy in an adjacent region (hits on 2 or less). This takes his action for the turn and he may not participate in any other combat for the remainder of the round.

Germany
Hermann Balk German Tank Commander whose lone Panzer Division nearly destroyed the entire Soviet Fifth Tank Army in three weeks. Pick a German tank. For the duration of the game this unit has +1 to combat rolls against Soviet Tanks.
Dietrich Von Sauken Prussian Nobleman, a tough veteran of every WW1 front. Saluted Hitler with a classic bent arm, typically sporting a cavalry sword, facial wounds and monocle. Dietrich asserted his command in spite of vocal anti-Nazi views while instrumental in the Kursk, Barbarossa, Minsk, and Moscow offensives. Pick a soldier. This motorized unit fights has an increased movement to two. May retreat two spaces, but cannot blitz like tanks and must end in first enemy territory entered. VonSauken supports two soldiers acting as an artillery piece.
Hans Rudel German Aviator veteran of 2,530 ground attack missions, over 50 aerial victories and claimed to have destroyed over 800 enemy vehicles of all types. Deploy a plane in Germany, this unit takes two hits to defeat. However, Hans may not take a damage meant for ground units, only for another air unit. At the end of the round if Hans survives he is restored to full health if ending in a starting German controlled territory.

United Kingdom:
Robert Ryder British Sailor, commanded a force of small unprotected transport ships during the daring raid of St. Nazaire dry docks. Instead of withdrawing as commanded, Ryder strafed fire for an hour and fifteen minutes recovering as many wounded as possible. Pick a transport. 1 adjacent allied land unit may choose to retreat to Ryder’s ship instead of fighting in a battle if there is space. This action is determined by the British player before the battle. Additionally, in an amphibious assault retreat if there are not enough transport ships for the British player, they may overload this ship but it may only offload retreated units to friendly territories.
Charles Upham New Zealand Platoon Leader, awarded the Victoria Cross twice. An offensive tactical might fighting in Crete, Greece, and El Almein. Place a soldier in British controlled Balkans, TransJordan, or Egypt during the deployment phase. This unit negates German and Italian artillery to a 1 while participating in an offensive.

Japan
Tameichi Hara Destroyer Captain, Tameichi had the highest hit % of any destroyer in the war. Wrote the torpedo tactics for the Empire of Japan, a samurai descendent, and fierce drinker. Pick a destroyer. This is now commanded by Tameichi Hara and will re-roll missed dice once for that piece.

Italian Famous Maneuver
Charge of the Savoia Cavalleria Anachronistic Italian Cavalry charge. In 1942 the Piedmont Count Alessandro Cazzago led a mounted assault against soviet troops, capturing 600 killing 150 and wounding 300 more. Italian forces lost 32 and well over a 100 horses. The Count’s mount Albino lived as well as the heroic counterattack shocking the Eastern Front. Once per game, if Germans lose and retreat Italy may counterattack with tanks and troops from up to two spaces away. The first round of this counterattack applies losses without retaliation.

United States
Colonial Draft: Place one soldier in Puerto Rico (West Indies) and the Philippines
Native American Allies: Recruit an infantry in Central United States and Alaska

Soviet Union Famous Maneuver
Khalakin Ghol: Japan failed to take Mongolia buffered with Soviet assistance. 1 Russian troop placed in Mongolia with a value of 1 IPC. Only one soldier may garrison or attack Mongolia at any given time without air support. Only one offensive against this region may occur per round.
Far East Railway: Soviet Tanks move 3 spaces eastward.

Japan Famous Maneuver:
Kamikaze: Japan fighters can engage in combat without designating a place to land afterwards. If this choice is made in a sea space it is destroyed after two rounds of sustained combat. On land, if the space is captured on the offensive and the plane is forced to make a crash landing, roll a dice. If the dice is on an even number the plane did not survive the emergency landing and is destroyed.

Sounds good. I think I’ll go with that.
Thank you all for the input.  :-)

Here is 11 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

The following are my thoughts on an optional rules section for my Classic House Rules. These rules, and its associated new initial setup, are far removed from the Classic Axis and Allies you may be familiar with. But with the right group I think that this would be a great time. In the mean time, I strategize and theorize.

In this post, I’ll be discussing what I think Axis & Allies units should cost and why. I think that flying units and naval units are too expensive for a game about a war that involved death from above and death from the sea. Now, I’m not arguing that every unit should have the same price. Different units have different abilities and these abilities should come at different costs. But I believe that flying units should have their prices reduced by 1/3rd and naval units should have their prices cut in half.

First, let’s talk about the way things are now. Currently, the base units in Classic Axis & Allies have these costs and abilities (IC is Industrial Complex):

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry    1    2    1      3    Bomber      4  4    6    15
Tank        3    2    2      5    Sub          2  2    2      8
AA Gun    0    *    1      5    Trans        0  1    2      8
IC            0    0    0    15    Carrier      1  3    2    18
Fighter    3    4    4    12    Battleship  4  4    2    24

To this list, I recommend reducing the price of fighters and ICs to 10, carriers to 16, and battleships to 20. This will help with the extreme range in prices at the top end of things. This will give us the following:

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
IC            0  0      0    10
Fighter      3  4      4    10
Carrier      1  3      2    16
Battleship  4  4      2    20

And to the above units I suggest adding the following new units:

Unit            ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Paratrooper  1*    2    1*    4    Special F’s  3*  3*    2*    8
Arm. Cav.    2      1      2    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6    10
Trooper      2      3      1    5    Cruiser        3    3      2    12
Heavy Art’y 2      3      1    6

All of this together gives us the following unit list:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      10
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      10
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      15
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        8
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2      8
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2      12
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      16
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      20
IC              0    0    0      10

What I am suggesting is a unilateral price cut of 1/3rd on flying units and 1/2 on naval units. Ground unit and IC’s would stay the same price. They would then look like this:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      7
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      7
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      10
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        4
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2        4
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2        6
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      8
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      10
IC              0    0    0      10

I find these prices to be more in line with the way I want to play Axis & Allies: lean, mean, and deadly. I want to be able to crash fleet on fleet, to soar into the air and take the fight to the enemy, without destroying the treasury or throwing them all away without replacement. Some of the most exciting fights in Axis & Allies are when that fleet is coming, whether it’s the Japanese fleet coming to take the Pacific, or the US Fleet coming to take the Pacific back, or the British fleet looking to avenge France.

But along with reduced prices come increased problems for the Axis. As it is, the Axis powers are under the gun to expand before the Allies can mount a credible defense of their holdings. When fighters, submarines, and transports are at all time low prices the job of the Allies - to bend but not break and to build up the forces to take the fight to the Axis - becomes all that much easier. This in turn makes the job of the Axis - to take as much territory as possible before the Allies come to take it all back - all the harder.

What to do about this question of balance? My suggestion: give the Axis a proportionally more air and sea power at the start of the game. This will allow the Axis to strike all the harder before the Allies start walking things back. So, half again more flying units and double the fleet for the Axis? How much are we actually talking about?

Standard setup for Germany gives 5 fighters and 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 2 transports, 0 carriers, and 1 battleship.

Standard setup for Japan gives 5 fighters and 1 bombers, 1 submarines, 2 transports, 1 carrier, and 2 battleships.

This gives both powers a total of 5+5=10 fighters and 1+1=2 bombers, 2+1=3 submarines, 2+2=4 transports, 0+1=1 carrier, and 1+2=3 battleships combined for the Axis powers.

Add to that the 4 cruisers (2 to Germany, 2 to Japan) and the 3 additional transports (1 to Germany, 2 to Japan) given out in the setup to account for additional naval forces not currently accounted for. (The Allies get 6 cruisers and 3 additional transports added to their navies at the start.) No extra fighters or bombers handed out yet.

This gives us a total Axis air and sea force of 10 fighters and 2 bombers; 3 submarines, 7 transports, 4 cruisers, 1 carrier, and 3 battleships combined for the Axis powers. Half again more fighters and bombers would yield 15 fighters and 3 bombers. Double the fleet would yield 6 submarines, 14 transports, 8 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 6 battleships. I would divy up this expanded force into Germany: 8 fighters, 2 bombers, 4 submarines, 6 transports, 3 cruisers, 0 carriers, and 2 battleships; and Japan: 7 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 8 transports, 5 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 4 battleships

This would be a massive force, dwarfing the Allies in the sky and at sea. But with new battleships and new bombers for 10 IPCs each, new fighters for 7 IPCs, and new submarines and transports for 4 IPCs, would even this massive force be enough? I don’t know, yet.

Both the known unbalancing effects of much cheaper air and sea units and the massive additional forces given to the Axis to balance out those cheaper planes and ships are well outside of normal Axis & Allies play. All of the above is why these rules and setups are optional. But after I get some results with these rules, I’ll update this post with some data.

-Midnight_Reaper

Lets be honest, if you’re playing USSR or a minor nation, all you are really doing is stalling the Axis powers.

nice piece…

@Baron:

Young Grasshopper has made a video on YouTube  Cliffside Bunker Channel which explains clearly how it works in Global game.

Then you should read my thread on Convoy Disruption for 1942.2.
There is two mechanics invented to try.

Thanks again, took a look at YG’s YT channel and found the explanation for CD.  That clears it up nicely and now we can add that to the game as well.  Should be quite interesting to add this tactic.  He mentioned that it’s the responsibility of the player to point out to the other players where he can be CD’d.  Only thing I don’t necessarily agree with.  Should be the other person’s responsibility to keep an eye on the board for when/where they can CD.  Other than that it looks pretty straight forward now that I’ve seen it explained.

Taking a look at your thread as well.  :-)

Lets suppose that units generated by the mobilization of minor ally nations can visually be distinguished rather than simply merge into the armies of the controlling power.

This might just mean, for example, a yellow stripe on a French infantry to mark it as Belgian. With all the new pieces available if you contact WOTC this becomes practical.

What differences might these units have?

+1 in combat when defending their homeland; -1 elsewhere, or if their homeland is under enemy occupation?

e.g. - If Poland is under German occupation, will Polish units in the Russian army be less effective fighting for Russia, unless it means fighting over Poland itself?

option to place a new unit in the respective homeland each turn (with a sensible total limit - probably the original starting number; i.e. you can never have more than 3 & 1 Belgian inf and art).

One might extend the principle to colonies, e.g. marking some UK units as Canadian, South African, Indian, Anzac etc.

Would separate Bavarian units be representative of German political divisions?

Polish corps in the Russian army?

Austria-Hungary might have a real problem…

Ya I agree. You still need the T-34’s.