New UK Pacific Nation (video added)

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

Here is 5 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

Here are my rules for developing weapons technology in the Milton Bradley edition of A&A. These rules are optional. My rules have two ways of developing weapons - random research and directed research.

Random Research

Random research works mostly the same as regular rules - buy dice at 5 IPCs per die, roll purchased dice, if you roll a 6, you managed to stumble onto a new technology. If using the technology chart in my Post 6 (New Research Tech for Classic), rules will be provided in that post. If using the standard Milton Bradley technology chart, follow the rules in the “New Ways to Get the Same Old Technology” section below. Technology gained from random research takes effect at the end of the player’s turn.

Directed Research

Directed Research is for those who want to know when they will get their hands on these technological terrors they’ve been spending money on. On a player’s turn, they can choose to roll randomly for research or they can make a directed research attempt (DRA). A country can have a maximum of two DRAs at any one time.

To make a directed research attempt, select the technology desired. If using the revised technology chart, rules will be provided in my Post 6. If using the standard Milton Bradley technology chart, follow the rules in the “New Ways to Get the Same Old Technology” section below. Once an available technology has been selected, the player then pays 10 IPCs to the bank and rolls a d6. On a roll of 1 or 2, the player needs one more turn; a roll of 3 or 4, two more turns; a roll of 5 or 6, three more turns to finish the research.

Each subsequent turn, the player has the option of paying 5 IPCs to advance the research. On the turn that a player makes their final payment, the technology takes effect at the end of that turn. On the player’s next turn, they may start another DRA.

Directed research attempts also have the following restrictions: not more than two DRAs on-going at any one time, can only start one at a time, must wait a turn to start another one if they have two at the same time at the start of their turn.

If the player does not pay on their turn, their only penalty is having to wait yet another turn for their research (no penalty for “missed” payments).

Using this system, a player can get any one technology in 2 to 4 turns for a cost of 15 to 25 IPCs.

Combining Random and Directed Research

If a player is doing directed research and then decides to roll randomly, this is allowed. If the player randomly researches the same technology that was being developed with directed research, the player recieves the technology rolled for just as if the player had never started any research on that technology. The player will receive no refund on any previously-spent research funds and may not redirect the previously-spent directed research funds to another research project - research is over. This doubly researched technology will be available at the end of the player’s turn.

The only restriction on random and directed research is that a player may not undertake two directed research projects and then conduct random research. Combining one directed research project and random research is allowed.

New Ways to Get the Same Old Technology

While my rules include a revised technology chart, these rules work with the standard Milton Bradley technology chart with one proviso - if your game has the standard technology chart and directed research, research into Heavy Bombers should be denied until after successfully researching both Long Range Aircraft and either Jets or Rockets. Research into the two of three technologies could be in any order and could be done with random or directed research.

When rolling for the random result of a successful random research attempt, if the player rolls a 6 (Heavy Bombers) and is not yet eligible to research Heavy Bombers, the player will re-roll. If the re-roll is also a 6, the player may choose any remaining available unresearched technology for the player’s result.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Leatherneckinlv:

After play testing some…I came to the conclusion France needs to BB and a Destroyer…1 BB makes no difference…thoughts so far

I am curious, how does Italy or Germany react to that battleship?

GenHandGrenade, I applaud you for working on implementing a new unit. But of course not everyone is readily going to accept your HR idea.

I agree with Narvik in sentiment. I would play a HR described by him. Also, I think there should be no restrictions on the amount of units for purchase. No single unit should be so powerful that you have to put a restriction on the amount.

I think your HR over represents this type of unit and made it too powerful in retrospect to the representation of the size of the units in this strategic level board game.

I think the “SFU” should be: C5 / A1 /  D2 / M2 + Airborne attack movement up to 3 spaces from an air base (like the Airborne tech from OOB). Artillery pair up the SFU to +1 for attacks (not the other way around of SFU pairing up other units). 4 spaces is too far in this game I think and changes the game dynamics too much I think.

Combined Arms Explanation: Modern US Army Airborne Rangers call in artillery (or an A-10 Thunderbolt II) for support. So in the game, a “SFU” should be paired up by artillery, not it pairing up other units.

US Army Special Forces (SF as Soldiers say or “Green Berets” to the general public), Navy Seals, and Delta Force (off shoot of SF), usually don’t operate above a platoon sized element. Only Army Rangers operate up to a battalion level. Essentially, Rangers are just infantry, (bad ass elite infantry, but infantry nonetheless). Ranger units and Airborne Divisions were sized large enough in WW2 to “barely” be represented in this game as a single unit on the board.

Cost Explanation for 5 IPCs: 4 IPCs account for the 2 space movement ability like mech +1 more IPC to account for the cost of the airborne “transport” option from an air base. This way mech remain the main mobile infantry and tanks still roll overall better while being the justified higher 6 IPC cost.

@Black_Elk:

Japan’s starting IC violates the island prohibition, even in the OOB game, which always struck me as inconsistent.

Japan is not an island, its a continent like Europe, Africa, Greenland or Australia.

@oztea:

Gotta disable smileys in that post YG.  8-)

Done.

First, I am assuming that all submarines in A & A attack from periscope depth, not the surface.  That is the only way that the first strike rule for submarines can be justified.  If all subs are attacking on the surface then aircraft should be able to attack subs without a destroyer present, and all surface ships should get a free shot at the sub with no chance of reply, as most successful torpedo attacks occurred at ranges of less than 2,000 yards, point blank range for surface guns.  The attack chance is based on a submerged sub attacking a sub running on the surface, not submerged.  WW2 boats spent most of their time on the surface, submerging only to attack or avoid aircraft and surface ships.  The snorkel only came into use by the Germans in mid-1944, and did allow for diesel running while submerged.  If you wish, I will post a detailed discussion of WW2 submarine tactics and operational proceedures.  If you argue that all subs are always submerged, then they should have a movement of 1 sea zone every two turns, to reflect the very low speed of submerged running.  You cannot have it both ways.

OK yes submarines attacked at periscope depth and then immediately submerged at the first sign of trouble. And what the ‘first strike’ idea is supposed to model. However, fighters didn’t have the tactic of attacking subs down until the mid war period and up until that time reconnaissance planes ( in our case bombers) were used as spotters for convoy or for wolf packs to hunt convoy system. Those snorkel types you mentioned are the type XXI Walter U-boat turbine system which could travel in some cases underwater faster than some allied destroyers ( about 16 knots). Also you have to know that a turn in AA is something like 4-6 months which is plenty of time to move around and not really effect its movement. The 2 movement point thing is for play balance issues because if naval vessels had unlimited range it would mess up the game because its already a highly abstracted strategic system.

As for a submerged submarine sinking a submerged submarine, the HMS Venturer sank the U-864 while both were submerged on February 6, 1945.  This is the first recorded case of a submerged sub being sunk by another submerged sub.  Both the US and the UK in the immediate postwar period began the development of hunter-killer subs designed specifically for submerged ASW engagement.  During WW2, British submarines sank 35 enemy submarines.  I will need to check on the totals for the other countries.

I knew you would bring up that example: but the game is representing one submarine as something like 20-40 submarines for each ‘piece’ and that is only one example near the last days of the war. Hardly anything to base a major principle of naval combat on IMO. The game has to reflect what actually happened as a matter of normal affairs during the war . All postwar developments wont help us model WW2.

I added to my own WAW game.
Light bomber.
Air transport.
Stuka.
Navy and air force fighter.

For the carrier i don’t agree.
Come on guys, A carrier cannot attack!!!

Carrier defend at 3, Move 2, 2 hit, 2 airplanes.
Escort carrier = defend at 2, move 2, 1 hit. 1 airplane.

AL.