I have an Idea for Historical Board Gaming

@all-encompassing-goose

By the way, do the US and Japanese neutral rules still apply? As in the rules prohibiting the US to park ships near Japanese territory or the rules prohibiting Japan to move ships within a certain amount of sea zones to the continental US.

Can nations remain neutral if they want to?

I would highly, highly recommend going “Three-Turns per Round”.

Axis Powers go first.

Then, Russia & China go.

Finally, Allies go.

If you have 8 players that know what they’re doing, this makes a very intense G40 game happen in about 7 or 8 hours.

Axis and Allied forces can attack together.  Russia may not attack with Allied forces.  China also may not attack together with Allied forces.

I begin by repeating myself: if adding units, add more territories. Given the current map (G40, 2nd edition), I honestly don’t see any room for additional units. More space would need to added to open up additional possibilities for strategic movement on the board. This would create a new problems of its own, which I address below, but it is the fundamental change to which I think one must commit when deciding to add more units.

So, the real question is: How to balance realism/plausibility with a desire on the part of some players to do “new stuff” with new mechanics. Several major challenges arise:

Are we looking at the operational or strategic level of warfare? Axis & Allies splits the difference for the sake of creating a reasonable fun gameplay experience. If each unit is an abstraction of actual forces, then:
Land units (mostly) represent armies or corps of infantry, and divisions of armor and artillery. A few odd units in places like Hong Kong and French Indo-China represent functionally independent divisional commands. I have heard some concern on these forums about artillery moving and attacking at the same time as other units. Some people think that artillery should fire first, as it does during a general advance on the battlefield. There have also been arguments that it should fire in defense. I think that the first argument is most-flawed. Because of the level of abstraction described above (typically at the corps and divisional levels), land combat in Axis & Allies represents strategic, campaign-level movement in a given region. It does not represent operational or tactical activity. Artillery should not be presented separately or be able to conduct discrete “fire missions.” In terms of using artillery on the defensive, I think the choice to do otherwise was dictated by use of the d6 standard. Infantry don’t gain a defense bonus from artillery because they would defend at 3, which would dramatically reduce the value of purchasing armor.

Air units usually represent full wings of fighters or bombers, but the Scramble rule is all about using them tactically. The chief problem with air units has to do with movement. They perform regular movement at one scale, and combat movement at another.

Naval units represent flotillas. Thus, each destroyer represents a group, and each capital ship, a squadron. Together, they form fleets. My only gripe about naval action is that the Cruiser and the Battleship are not sufficiently different. Let’s compare.

So what about the map?
My recommendation would be to increase the number of map spaces at the expense of realism. Each turn still represents about three months’ real time. Crossing the Atlantic would take 2 turns. Crossing the Pacific would take 3-4 turns. This would not be realistic, but it would create more opportunities for movement, blocking, and naval combat searches, which I think should be instituted. (I think that, before any naval combat, a die should be rolled to determine whether the searching fleets even find one another. This creates the possibility that attacks on enemy fleets will be foiled and tempts players into trying to “sneak” forces past the enemy.)

Air units should have different values for attacking other air units and then naval and land forces. Split the current tactical bomber into two units: a naval torpedo bomber that can select which naval units are hit and a dive bomber that is slightly cheaper, but optimized to hit land units.

Does the Cruiser have good value?

The value of a unit can be calculated by adding up its movement, attack, and defense values, expressed relative to its cost. Thus, a cruiser has value 8/12, or 2/3. That is, you get a .66 return on every IPC spent. A battleship has value 10/20, or 1/2, which is a .5 return on every IPC spent. However, it can survive an extra hit, which means that it is technically a 1 return on every IPC spent. The obvious cruiser alternative is more destroyers. A destroyer has value 6/8, or 3/4, meaning that there is a .75 return on every IPC spent before factoring in the benefit of its anti-submarine capabilities. Better, then, to buy destroyers or battleships every time, especially because one can buy 2 destroyers for every 1.5 cruisers. (I’m no math whiz, and I welcome alternative interpretations.)

One approach to improving the cruiser’s value would be, I think, to give it a small area-of-effect bonus against attacking aircraft, representing its role as an escort for the big battlewagons.

In terms of adding other units, I think Commerce Raiders would be useful only if more spaces were added to the game. The inclusion of trade routes in the new HBG 1936 edition may create space for such a unit. I like the idea of adding Destroyer Escorts to safeguard convoy zones and transports, but I think that kind of work can already be performed by the Destroyer. Torpedo boats would be an interesting addition, but their value is really in the Mediterranean, which would need to be expanded in space to enhance the value of maneuver. I’m also concerned that such small craft wouldn’t thrive against A&A air units, which are extraordinarily powerful against other units.

Battlecruisers are interesting but effectively pointless since they will not travel at 3. HBG has experimented with Coastal Battleships and Coastal Submarines for lesser powers, and I suppose these units might be worthwhile, but then only as part of the forces that smaller nations receive at game start and are compelled to use due to anemic budgets.

I think what I would do is just stack Paris, sink z96, and grab Java and land the ANZAC fighters there.  I calculate that Germany would have to use the entire luftwaffe plus all land units in range to take Paris without losing large number of tanks/mechs.  I think this is historically fair because stacking Paris would be in the spirit of France being in defensive mode, and let’s just say that in the real war France got diced by the sickle cut.  It should have been harder for Germany.  So in this scenario the royal navy would be quite safe and without any possibility of sealion they could easily afford to nuke Taranto and build an IC in Egypt right away.  Russia gets some breathing room and a strong UK gives USA more room to focus on the Pacific. ANZAC having an extra round of income and $14 for the first couple rounds is a small help too.

http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd321/WotC_Solice/GenCon 2008/GenCon037.jpg

That is a pretty cool rule.

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.

My only problem with LL type SBR rules are, they are a distinct advantage for the side that already has the lead.  Say a Japan earning 40+ vs. a Russia earning 20 or a US and UK earning a combined 55 vs. Germany earning 30.

Once you have the economic lead the cumulative effects can be devasting even if you are only doing 3 damage while also losing 3 each time.

I’ve thought about keeping the regular AA fire rules, but for the attacker 1’s and 6’s are removed.  So you can still do 2,3,4,5 in damage but once again the extremes are removed.

++++ or you can do this:

roll one D6:
1-2= 2 ipc lost
3-4= 4 ipc lost
5-6= 6 ipc lost

or
1-2=1 ipc lost’
3-4=2 ipc lost
5-6=4 ipc lost

I’ve also thought about making aa-fire two-fold.
First you roll, then if you get a “1” that means you’ve done damage to the Bomber.
So, a 1/6 shot at doing damage.
Now you roll to see how much damage.
On your second roll if you roll a:

1 or 6:  Bomber is destroyed (about a 5% chance when first roll is taken into account - I think)

2, 3, 4, or 5:  Cash damage to attacker

(alternative)
2,3,4: Cash Damage
5:  Non-lethal hit to bomber, no damage.

In the real war only 10% of sorties were lost on avarage due to flak batteries ( ground based causes)

under our system rolls one d6  if you get a one roll again

if you roll one a second time its destroyed, 2-3 it must return to base no mission. this is dont before any defender can even engage the SBR planes and/ escorts.