RetroFuhrerMeister's 1940 Rules and Setup

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I love that you have France going first, and I think your changes to the unit stats (cheaper cruiser, strategic bomber doesn’t massacre ships, etc.) are several steps in the right direction.

    I’d encourage you to spend some more time balancing the value of your techs against each other. I enjoy playing with techs, but a common, valid criticism of A&A Revised Edition was that if you rolled Heavy Bombers or Long-Range Aircraft, the game was yours, and if you rolled Rockets or War Bonds, then you wasted your money. The “roll at ever easier targets until you discover something” solves the problem where you might not discover any tech, but it doesn’t solve the problem where some techs are worth much, much more than others.

    Imagine, for the sake of argument, a nation that’s earning about 65 IPCs / turn. Could be Germany, Japan, USA – doesn’t really matter. A major power. Efficient Industrialization tech is worth at least 16 IPCs / turn to that major power, even if they don’t alter their strategy at all. If you build something really balanced and ordinary like 4 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk, 2 DD, 1 CV, and 1 ftr, you save sixteen IPCs because of your new tech. Every turn.

    Now let’s take that same 65 IPCs and see how it benefits from Improved Artillery tech. Well, you could get away with building 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 2 DD, 1 CV, and 1 ftr, for total savings of 1 IPC per turn. If you really wanted to stress your artillery advantage, you could build something like 10 inf, 3 art and save 2-3 IPCs/turn. It’s just not in the same league as Efficient Industrialization. It could be useful for Russia if you’ve already built a huge stack of infantry and you need an offensive boost NOW because you’ve run short on artillery with which to trade territories … but I think Russia would still much rather have the Industrial advantage, because with the savings from Efficient Industrialization, Russia could just buy more infantry and more artillery.

    So, yeah, my advice is to look at each of your techs, calculate the rough value in IPCs/turn that each tech represents to a major power, and make sure they’re within a few IPCs/turn of each other.

    Specifically on the Heavy Tanks thing, I think your idea is really cool, but I agree with ammantai that heavy tanks historically were crazy expensive and could not be manufactured in strategically significant quantities. They were also no better than medium tanks at mowing down infantry – you only needed heavy tanks if you were fighting against medium tanks. With that in mind, here’s how I would reword Heavy Tanks:

    “During land battles, in each round of combat during which both you and your opponent have at least one tank, you ignore the first casualty inflicted on you (if any).”

    That way you can’t use a tank stack to (unrealistically and annoyingly) absorb a dozen hits each round, but your tanks will still fight better than your opponent’s tanks in a way that’s fun to exploit.


  • @Don:

    I love this setup! great work!

    The NO’s and the order of play makes a lot more sense. some rules i won’t use such as R&D, new unit prices, Amphibious assault rules etc.
    The game will be very complicated because there are lots of new rules and many many many new air- and naval bases.

    Great to see ANZAC and France a lot stronger so they really aid the Allies!

    Can you write down the philosophy behind the political situation , the setup, the NO’s and the order of play ? Just to introduce the scenario for new players

    My philosophy was putting the start date a bit earlier, prior to the evacuation of Dunkirk. Thus France has one last moment to provide an impact before Germany destroys her. The British are still stuck in France, so the Germans have the opportunity to wipe them out and correct a mistake. The Soviet Union must prepare itself for the fight of it’s life if it wishes to spread “communism” to Europe, it’s industry is behind somewhat. Japan presses itself further into China, but must be cautious of the Soviet forces and the ever painful Chinese guerrillas. ANZAC must position itself for the moment Japan decides to play aggressive in the Pacific. The United States is in a vulnerable position, it’s units are stuck almost exclusively to American regions. Italy is about to enter the war, and will receive German aid in crushing the British in Africa. China will need to weigh it’s options. Eventually everyone gets in the war, most if not all neutrals will be invaded in all likelihood. Basically in a nutshell, I wanted every nation to be able to contribute a significant bit.

    @Argothair:

    I love that you have France going first, and I think your changes to the unit stats (cheaper cruiser, strategic bomber doesn’t massacre ships, etc.) are several steps in the right direction.

    I’d encourage you to spend some more time balancing the value of your techs against each other. I enjoy playing with techs, but a common, valid criticism of A&A Revised Edition was that if you rolled Heavy Bombers or Long-Range Aircraft, the game was yours, and if you rolled Rockets or War Bonds, then you wasted your money. The “roll at ever easier targets until you discover something” solves the problem where you might not discover any tech, but it doesn’t solve the problem where some techs are worth much, much more than others.

    Imagine, for the sake of argument, a nation that’s earning about 65 IPCs / turn. Could be Germany, Japan, USA – doesn’t really matter. A major power. Efficient Industrialization tech is worth at least 16 IPCs / turn to that major power, even if they don’t alter their strategy at all. If you build something really balanced and ordinary like 4 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk, 2 DD, 1 CV, and 1 ftr, you save sixteen IPCs because of your new tech. Every turn.

    Now let’s take that same 65 IPCs and see how it benefits from Improved Artillery tech. Well, you could get away with building 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 2 DD, 1 CV, and 1 ftr, for total savings of 1 IPC per turn. If you really wanted to stress your artillery advantage, you could build something like 10 inf, 3 art and save 2-3 IPCs/turn. It’s just not in the same league as Efficient Industrialization. It could be useful for Russia if you’ve already built a huge stack of infantry and you need an offensive boost NOW because you’ve run short on artillery with which to trade territories … but I think Russia would still much rather have the Industrial advantage, because with the savings from Efficient Industrialization, Russia could just buy more infantry and more artillery.

    So, yeah, my advice is to look at each of your techs, calculate the rough value in IPCs/turn that each tech represents to a major power, and make sure they’re within a few IPCs/turn of each other.

    Specifically on the Heavy Tanks thing, I think your idea is really cool, but I agree with ammantai that heavy tanks historically were crazy expensive and could not be manufactured in strategically significant quantities. They were also no better than medium tanks at mowing down infantry – you only needed heavy tanks if you were fighting against medium tanks. With that in mind, here’s how I would reword Heavy Tanks:

    “During land battles, in each round of combat during which both you and your opponent have at least one tank, you ignore the first casualty inflicted on you (if any).”

    That way you can’t use a tank stack to (unrealistically and annoyingly) absorb a dozen hits each round, but your tanks will still fight better than your opponent’s tanks in a way that’s fun to exploit.

    I’m considering the Artillery tech to provide 3 Infantry an attack boost, weakening Efficient Industrialization somehow, and have it where Tanks only get a free hit during an attack for every Tank the enemy has.


  • @RetroFuhrerMeister:

    Two Powers of the same alliance may not enter one another’s territory unless they share a state of war with at least one enemy power. This rule also applies to Canals and Straits.

    We will be playing A&A this weekend, we might try this alternatve setup and rules. I like it a lot!

    Can you explain the political situation between Germany and Italy? Italy is neutral till round 2 so France and UK can’t attack Italy. Italy however can (and probably will) attack the UK and/or france It.1.

    Germany starts with two loaded transports in SZ 95 and share this zone with Italy. France and the UK are at war with Germany and neutral to Italy. They can’t enter SZ 95, 96 and 97 so the german transports are safe in this seazone.

    I was wondering: is Germany allowed to drop their units in Lybia or Tobruk (so the transports stay in SZ 95 or 96)? If so, can Germany also send land units into northern Italy during NCM? this way Germany can send reinforcements to Africa G2.

    If Germany is not allowed to do so, i’ll leave the transport in SZ 95,96 or 97 G1. When Italy is at war the Germans can use their transports. Leaving the transports outside SZ 95,96 or 97 is suicide.


  • @Don:

    @RetroFuhrerMeister:

    Two Powers of the same alliance may not enter one another’s territory unless they share a state of war with at least one enemy power. This rule also applies to Canals and Straits.

    We will be playing A&A this weekend, we might try this alternatve setup and rules. I like it a lot!

    Can you explain the political situation between Germany and Italy? Italy is neutral till round 2 so France and UK can’t attack Italy. Italy however can (and probably will) attack the UK and/or france It.1.

    Germany starts with two loaded transports in SZ 95 and share this zone with Italy. France and the UK are at war with Germany and neutral to Italy. They can’t enter SZ 95, 96 and 97 so the german transports are safe in this seazone.

    I was wondering: is Germany allowed to drop their units in Lybia or Tobruk (so the transports stay in SZ 95 or 96)? If so, can Germany also send land units into northern Italy during NCM? this way Germany can send reinforcements to Africa G2.

    If Germany is not allowed to do so, i’ll leave the transport in SZ 95,96 or 97 G1. When Italy is at war the Germans can use their transports. Leaving the transports outside SZ 95,96 or 97 is suicide.

    Germany and Italy are neutral to one another, technically all Axis powers are neutral to each other at the moment.

    Thus units can’t enter Italian territory, they are basically stuck till G2, unless France moves it’s units out of neighboring sea zones to it’s own territory.

  • '17 '16

    Facilities roll AA Fire now at 2.
        Strategic Bombers can only attack at 2 against naval units.
       Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 bombing damage bonus if they depart from an operational Airbase.

    What line of reasoning made you radically change the AA facilities to @2?

    The other two seems enough to better balance StBs.
    I can see from historical perspective reducing StBs vs naval units to A2 or from game POV to limit Dark Skies Strategy.
    The first one, IC’s AA@2, completly negates StBs usefulness in SBR.
    Hence, StBs stay unhistorically useful for regular combat against ground units.


  • @Baron:

    Facilities roll AA Fire now at 2.
       Strategic Bombers can only attack at 2 against naval units.
      Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 bombing damage bonus if they depart from an operational Airbase.

    What line of reasoning made you radically change the AA facilities to @2?

    The other two seems enough to better balance StBs.
    I can see from historical perspective reducing StBs vs naval units to A2 or from game POV to limit Dark Skies Strategy.
    The first one, IC’s AA@2, completly negates StBs usefulness in SBR.
    Hence, StBs stay unhistorically useful for regular combat against ground units.

    It was to help aid the Soviet Union, who is destroyed by bombing faster than by actual combat, resulting in most of the axis victories you tend to see.

    I’ll change the AA fire rule. It will only apply to Major Factories, and it is modified enough to still help out the Soviet Union and not discourage bombing too much for Germany.

    Please see the original post.

  • '17 '16

    @RetroFuhrerMeister:

    @Baron:

    Facilities roll AA Fire now at 2.
       Strategic Bombers can only attack at 2 against naval units.
      Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 bombing damage bonus if they depart from an operational Airbase.

    What line of reasoning made you radically change the AA facilities to @2?

    The other two seems enough to better balance StBs.
    I can see from historical perspective reducing StBs vs naval units to A2 or from game POV to limit Dark Skies Strategy.
    The first one, IC’s AA@2, completly negates StBs usefulness in SBR.
    Hence, StBs stay unhistorically useful for regular combat against ground units.

    It was to help aid the Soviet Union, who is destroyed by bombing faster than by actual combat, resulting in most of the axis victories you tend to see.

    I’ll change the AA fire rule. It will only apply to Major Factories, and it is modified enough to still help out the Soviet Union and not discourage bombing too much for Germany.

    Please see the original post.

    Interesting idea to increase AA defense in a progressive way :
    1AA for minor IC and 2AA for major IC.
    Maybe when a major IC is unable to produce, it cannot use the second AA?


  • I realize this is quite out of place as I see that’s the main goal was better rules than better setup, but is it possible to play this with standard rules (perhaps only change the turn order)? My fellow gamers still refuse to play it, but I love to play any alternate setup I can get my hands on! Thanks.

    de Gaulle


  • @Charles:

    I realize this is quite out of place as I see that’s the main goal was better rules than better setup, but is it possible to play this with standard rules (perhaps only change the turn order)? My fellow gamers still refuse to play it, but I love to play any alternate setup I can get my hands on! Thanks.

    de Gaulle

    You could try, but expect possible balance issues.

  • '19 '18 '17 '16

    Is there any feedback on playing this set up/turn order/NO’s?

    • France goes first with more units & aircraft carrier

    • Italy starts out neutral

    • US navy with 4 aircraft carriers to start

    Just to name a few changes that seem big to me.  The victory conditions listed & different NO from the original I have used before and found them to enhance the game play.

    Hopefully, I can get this set up/rules in place and we can try it out soon.  Just curious in the meantime what others have discovered from their experience.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 2
  • 7
  • 51
  • 23
  • 1
  • 84
  • 9
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

30

Online

17.0k

Users

39.2k

Topics

1.7m

Posts