Optional rules to make naval warfare more interesting


  • Hello. I don’t know if this is the right section please feel free to move the post if it is not.

    So, long time no post here and there’s a reason for that. I got bored of playing A&A 2004 edition and miniatures.

    So, recently saw the Europe and Pacific 1940 versions, felt like this game had changed enough to warrant me trying it again and so I bought both and played a game. Now, the problem with A&A is that even though it feels and looks like this sprawling epic game where you can re-enact WWII to some extent, it is a bit limited in what you can do successfully. And it all comes to show on Germany’s turn 1 in which Germany always sink the RN which is ridiculous.

    And then, England has to sink the Italian navy in the med. And this feels fairly limiting. Yes you can do other things but the way the game is set up and the way the rules work, sinking those navies is the best move.

    So, I came up with an idea to solve this which is replicating naval combat’s largest challenge:
    To actually spot the enemy fleet.

    Here’s how it works:
    Basically, you need to roll a d6 to be able to engage an enemy ship and  the difficulty of the roll, will be based on modifiers (from 1 to 5)

    Here are the spotting modifiers:

    Sea area adjacent to your territory, +1

    Sea area adjacent to enemy territory, -1*

    Naval units present, +1

    Air units present, +1

    Large enemy fleet (3 or more ships), +1

    lone ship or just submarines, -1**

    (minimum of 1)

    I found this to make the game much more dynamic.
    Example:
    Instead of getting an automatic engagement, on turn one, Germany needs to roll spotting to detect the UK fleets.
    To find the RN and in zone 111 it will need to roll the following:

    enemy territory adjacent, -1
    Air units, +1
    Naval units, +1
    Large fleet, +1

    = 2

    So, the German player has to roll a 2 or less to be able to engage in combat otherwise the forces never meet.

    In zone 109 however:

    Territory adjacent, +1
    enemy territory adjacent, -1
    Air units, +1
    Naval units, +1
    Large fleet, +1

    = 3

    Because the sea zone is adjacent to both territories, the German player only needs a 3 or lower. This usually leads to one of the fleets surviving early game which makes things more problematic for the Axis and create interesting conundrums for the German player as failure to engage might leave their own navy exposed to a spotting roll by the British and being sunk.

    However, the Italian player also has a chance of keeping its battleship which allows the axis a much tighter grip in the med.

    Now, if you noticed, I had a couple of Asterisks in the modifiers above. They are:

    (*) if a fleet is comprised of just subs, they do not suffer this penalty/bonus

    (**) If enemy player has one or more aircraft carriers in the zone, this bonus does not apply. THis is to simulate the role of CVEs in the Atlantic battle.

    Now there is another change that is made to account for the Commerce raiders which is that cruisers, deal +1 (or +2 needs further testing) IC damage in their rolls. This makes Cruisers more efficient than subs however, easier to detect. This changes commerce raiding and Sea control completely making it more exciting.
    A US player Detecting a single German Cruiser raiding zone 101 would have the following modifiers:

    Sea zone adjacent, +1
    Single ship, -1
    naval units, +1
    Air units, +1

    = 2

    So, the US player would have to roll a 2 or less to detect a single cruiser.

    To detect one or two submarines:

    Single ship, -1
    naval units, +1
    Air units, +1

    = 1

    However, if you add a third submarine the large fleet detection bonus applies making the detection value 2 making larger fleets of submarines more detectable.
    And of course an aircraft carrier would make it even easier (they do not need aircraft on them)

    This leads to some Graf Spee like chases in the Atlantic and makes commerce raiding annoying and dangerous at the same time. As a player using these resources you will be always hunted and if you are not detected the first time, you will want to the high Seas to evade since you increase their difficulty. However, over time, your ships will be hunted down. Aircraft carriers are a must since they help a lot. All of a sudden your sub and ships are a lot more visible and need to bugger off.

    This also means that your naval units can cross an enemy fleet
    –---------

    A new mechanic I want to test to make things more interesting is at the beginning of the player’s phase if an enemy fleet is in the same space as yours, add a +1 to detection rolls if you don’t move. Meaning you are sharing a sea space with an enemy fleet and they already missed a detection roll the previous turn so next turn the net is closing on your ship or ships making it easier for them to detect you.

    Example:
    Germany has a U-boat on sea zone 119, Uk player moves a fleet there to try and find it:

    Single ship, -1
    Naval units, +1
    Air Units, +1
    Aircraft carrier, +1

    = 2

    Uk player fails.

    Next turn German player wants to push his luck and keep the sub in that area so he places a +1 counter there. Next UK phase, the UK player will roll for detection again:

    Single ship, -1
    Naval units, +1
    Air Units, +1
    Aircraft carrier, +1
    Counter, +1

    = 3

    So now, the sub has a 50% chance of being detected.

    Another mechanic that I want to try is that I want capital ships (BB and CV) to take 2 turns to build AND can only be deployed in naval bases

    Quick FAQ:
    Q: Can ships move through enemy controlled Sea zones?
    A: Yes but the player who controls that zone can decide if he wants to try and spot you. If the roll fails, you can keep moving unimpeded if succeeds, resolve combat and fleet stops.

    Q: can subs be detected without a destroyer present?
    A: Yes, but they can submerge after one round of combat if no destroyer present. Submarines up to the type XXI were really boats that could do a limited spell underwater not submarines as we have them now. So they spent most of their time on the surface, therefore, you can detect them and force one round of combat after which they submerge. They are hard buggers to detect though…

    Now, I found these changes to breed new life into the game. For instance, Germany does not get both UK fleets and has to focus on 1 really or risk losing
    its Baltic fleet however, commerce raiding is even more annoying and single cruisers can cause a lot of damage and force you to relocate your fleets to try and stop them.

    I have other ideas for expansions that will use this excellent combat engine and give it a bit more depth making the final results more interesting and engaging.

    I will make another post with a rough abstract of those ideas later on.

    Let me know what you guys think.

  • '17 '16

    It seems a bit complex to make these modifiers for a roll to spot.

    This can distract from the main objectives and steps: purchase, planning strategies, moves and combat.

    Maybe a different roll per unit type and number of unit would be easier to deal with. IDK
    Example of possibilities:
    Each Sub and DD can roll @2 or less
    Planes @3 or less
    Bomber @4 or less
    Cruiser @3
    But Carrier and BB capital ships rolls @2.
    Each unit can make a roll test.

    Your thread will be moved in the House rule section, IMO.


  • @Baron:

    It seems a bit complex to make these modifiers for a roll to spot.

    This can distract from the main objectives and steps: purchase, planning strategies, moves and combat.

    Maybe a different roll per unit type and number of unit would be easier to deal with. IDK
    Example of possibilities:
    Each Sub and DD can roll @2 or less
    Planes @3 or less
    Bomber @4 or less
    Cruiser @3
    But Carrier and BB capital ships rolls @2.
    Each unit can make a roll test.

    Your thread will be moved in the House rule section, IMO.

    It is not that complicated really. Once you play it, its quite intuitive. A single card can contain all the information required. Most of the text were examples. And of course, this will add another layer to the game but the tactical differences are worth it imho.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    Naval warfare isn’t very realistic but its fairly interesting as it stands, and part of keeping the game consistent is that by and large, naval and land warfare run according to similar mechanics.  Changing that isn’t a good idea for many reasons.

    There is no fog of war in AxA.  Unless you add some kind of spying/tech/recon/seaplanes etc that represent knowledge of the position of various forces their position and existence is obvious.

    That’s important because of the decisive battle concept.  There is no retreat.  Your opponent has limited space to run away;  and you have to bring him to decisive battle.  There are no pieces left after a successful battle for a reason;  control of territories is based on presence.  If something survives, it continues to block your progress/threaten your backfield.

    Also, AxA is based on a very specific apportionment of force for each battle.  If you do not even know whether you will be allowed to find, much less hit your target, it makes luck the dominating factor on whether you can even kill your opponent.  The effect of this is why would I spend time chasing ships that I may or may not attack when I can use planes to attack land units that I am certain I can kill.

    This makes the game unpredictable;  after I attack your scattered fleets, I don’t really know which ones will remain and therefore, have no idea where my backfield is.

    Your suggestion might lead to a more varied and dynamic placement of ships (where they don’t all have to huddle together for mutual protection), but the problem is that combat becomes much less predictable and certain, there is a ton of added complexity, and the game still isn’t realistic or historical because you can’t beat an opponent you can’t reliably confront.  We also don’t know what SZs will be blocked by combat ships (highly unrealistic but very much in line with how AxA works; one guy is a complete blocker against 100 ships or tanks) or where we might be vulnerable (one destroyer happens to slip past 8 planes, and now he threatens every transport I have).

    As far as I can tell, to keep the game rel. simple, the idea is that if you miss or fail (like 3 subs attack 2 destroyers and the destroyers live), that luck mimics the same dynamics you are trying to create (that is possible but unlikely that one or two isolated or unaccompanied ships might survive).    No matter how you can attack, you can fail;  why would we reduce that dynamic of “instead of attacking and rolling combat dice but failing, you tried to attack and failed in precombat to initiate combat”?


  • @taamvan:

    Naval warfare isn’t very realistic but its fairly interesting as it stands, and part of keeping the game consistent is that by and large, naval and land warfare run according to similar mechanics.  Changing that isn’t a good idea for many reasons.

    There is no fog of war in AxA.   Unless you add some kind of spying/tech/recon/seaplanes etc that represent knowledge of the position of various forces their position and existence is obvious.

    You don’t need to add that. That is abstracted into the game. You know enemy ships are in a certain sea zone but not where Very much like it was. They knew that the Graff Spee was somewhere and they had to hunt it down. And it took a lot of work and if they lost him they’d have to do all the work again. Same with the U-boats.

    That’s important because of the decisive battle concept.  There is no retreat.   Your opponent has limited space to run away;  and you have to bring him to decisive battle.   There are no pieces left after a successful battle for a reason;  control of territories is based on presence.   If something survives, it continues to block your progress/threaten your backfield.

    Also, AxA is based on a very specific apportionment of force for each battle.   If you do not even know whether you will be allowed to find, much less hit your target, it makes luck the dominating factor on whether you can even kill your opponent.  The effect of this is why would I spend time chasing ships that I may or may not attack when I can use planes to attack land units that I am certain I can kill.

    This is exactly what A&A does wrong imho. It becomes too mechanical. You know as germany on turn one exactly how much you need to invest to kill the RN and you will do it every single time. There is no variation. Games progress the same because from there, the UK player knows that he has to build infantry to protect against a possible Sea Lion and then attack the Italian BB on Mediterranean which leads the Italian player to pretty much do the only thing it can which is to ferry troops to North Africa and so on, and so on.

    Land warfare and Naval warfare are distinct in that in Naval warfare you have much lower troop concentration. In land warfare, you have natural chokepoints and strong positions that you don’t have in the sea. I feel that land combat is well represented in A&A but sea combat is basically land combat at Sea which just feels wrong to me.

    This makes the game unpredictable;   after I attack your scattered fleets, I don’t really know which ones will remain and therefore, have no idea where my backfield is.

    Your suggestion might lead to a more varied and dynamic placement of ships (where they don’t all have to huddle together for mutual protection), but the problem is that combat becomes much less predictable and certain, there is a ton of added complexity, and the game still isn’t realistic or historical because you can’t beat an opponent you can’t reliably confront.  We also don’t know what SZs will be blocked by combat ships (highly unrealistic but very much in line with how AxA works; one guy is a complete blocker against 100 ships or tanks) or where we might be vulnerable (one destroyer happens to slip past 8 planes, and now he threatens every transport I have).

    Making the game more unpredictable increases the choices and makes players behave differently. Sure, some games using this system I might spot a new meta that works better most of the time but in my only game using this, it was a blast and a half. Just try it for a couple of turns. :)

    We might just have different tastes though because the scenarios you are describing are exactly what I call fun. And you know those things are going to happen so you adapt to it and not min-max as much. And, always have warships keeping your transport’s company… Like in actual WWII.

    As far as I can tell, to keep the game rel. simple, the idea is that if you miss or fail (like 3 subs attack 2 destroyers and the destroyers live), that luck mimics the same dynamics you are trying to create (that is possible but unlikely that one or two isolated or unaccompanied ships might survive).    No matter how you can attack, you can fail;  why would we reduce that dynamic of “instead of attacking and rolling combat dice but failing, you tried to attack and failed in pre-combat to initiate combat”?

    This game would still be relatively simple. Its just adding a new mechanic that makes naval combat behave better. And this mechanic adds to the previous one it doesn’t replace it. It makes you commit to hunting down enemy ships and not just engage destroy, lather rinse repeat.
    I mean, I bought these games because I thought the game was different enough but, it felt much like the 2004 version with Italy… A&A needs to change a bit in order to remain competitive in this new age of boardgames. I had a game of Star Wars: Rebellion and the combat there feels so much more alive. This change brought the same feeling to A&A. Made it different enough that I am excited to play again.

    As I said, I have further ideas which involve generals and admirals and limited dice numbers but I need to get them more settled before I post them.


  • Apply the same rules across the board for land units and convoy attacks. Then create a cheap, fast moving unit for land and sea that acts as a scout and gives a +1/2 bonus to your fleet/army. Make a reacon truck that moves 2 spaces and has no attack value. Make a strictly naval plane that can only land on CVs with the same sort of value. Then it would be a complete rule.

    As far as my opinion goes….It would never reach my table. 9/10 times I play on the board I have teaching 1-2 new players the game. Adding even more elements to the game is great, but not for new players.  It seems simplistic in nature, but as far as execution goes, I don’t believe that a full armada of ships with air units not being able to spot another full armada of ships with air units in the English channel is very realistic. a 50% chance you spot an enemy fleet passing through the straight of Gibraltor… I think you need to fine tune this house rule a bit more.


  • @bakaman:

    Apply the same rules across the board for land units and convoy attacks. Then create a cheap, fast moving unit for land and sea that acts as a scout and gives a +1/2 bonus to your fleet/army. Make a reacon truck that moves 2 spaces and has no attack value. Make a strictly naval plane that can only land on CVs with the same sort of value. Then it would be a complete rule.

    As far as my opinion goes….It would never reach my table. 9/10 times I play on the board I have teaching 1-2 new players the game. Adding even more elements to the game is great, but not for new players. �It seems simplistic in nature, but as far as execution goes, I don’t believe that a full armada of ships with air units not being able to spot another full armada of ships with air units in the English channel is very realistic. a 50% chance you spot an enemy fleet passing through the straight of Gibraltor… I think you need to fine tune this house rule a bit more.

    Thanks for your feedback. As I said, I feel land combat is fairly well represented due to troop concentration per area. I feel that with the scale of the game recon units need not exist. They are abstracted into the game.

    As for nending refinement, I agree. The channel is an oddity (though the channel dash happened twice showing how hard it was to control even a relatively small piece of Sea). And ships passing through straights probably need an exemption.

    But, try this rule for a couple of turns and see how it feels ;)

    In our game, German player defeated UK fleet in the channel and couldn’the spot the one in 111. UK player then proceeded to destroy the German fleet there. German player then proceeded to use small fleets and individual ships for commerce raiding and harassment combining fleets for specific attacks. And the chasing of a lone cruiser by 2 of my cruisers and one destroyer through the Atlantic… amazing.

    Big fleet on fleet action happened in the Pacific and twould large fleets seldom lyrics missed each other. As I said, there is a ceiling of 5 on detection rolls. A 6 is abstracted as being for instance extremely bad weather. It could happen.

    For reference, in the Pacific a fleet of 2 BB 2 carriers) 3 Cruisers and 2 Destroyers with 4 attack aircraft engaged a japanese force of 2 BB 1 CV, 4 CA and 2DD with 2 aircraft. The spotting rolls were:

    Large enemy fleet, +1
    Carrier present, +1
    Aircraft, +1
    Naval presence, +1

    = 4.

    So you needed a 4 or lower to spot. This was not very problematic as they usually happened but I agree it should be a 5 in these conditions. Even in high seas. Maybe another condition would be if you have a large fleet you get a +1 too. But that might concentrate fleets again and lead to the usual game play… as you said, needs refinement ;)

    Edit: thinking about it some more and looking at the Pacific maps, maybe it’s fine as is since there are loads of islands in the Pacific. And usually one player needs to roll a 5 or less and the other player can use their islands to evade the incoming fleet. Much like what the war in the Pacific was, you need to go island hoping to take away enemy holdings. Now we didn’t feel this need in our game but it can happen I suppose.


  • For naval u can just add some sea planes to yr setup and also can buy. If need be.
    Sm Sea Plane C5 M4 can only land on carriers.
    Leg Sea Plane C8 M6 can only land on land.

    Any roll of 3 or less finds the enemy fleet.
    Then after turn 5 (can adjust this) no need for seaplanes to find fleets


  • @SS:

    For naval u can just add some sea planes to yr setup and also can buy. If need be.
    Sm Sea Plane C5 M4 can only land on carriers.
    Leg Sea Plane C8 M6 can only land on land.

    Any roll of 3 or less finds the enemy fleet.
    Then after turn 5 (can adjust this) no need for seaplanes to find fleets

    I would rather not add any new units. A more simple roll can do though. The bonus for carrier spotting was there exactly as an abstract CVE role.

    And I wanted to make the economic disruption of naval warfare more dynamic.

    But, a flat 3 roll for sea detection might be the ticket. It could be:

    3 for normal ships and fleets

    2 for subs and single cruisers or destroyers (commerce raiders)

    Next time I might try it like this next game. But I like the modularity of my first example.

    So, next game I want to try three house rules:

    Spotting roles
    2 turns build time for capital ships
    Limited number of dice on land Battles (between 10 and 20 dice).

    Limited number of dice rule is to simulate the limits of how many troops you can deploy in a given piece of land. I haven’t tried it yet but my idea is something like:

    Attacker gets to deploy 10 or 20 ground units per assault. Rest will be held as reserve. As his units are lost, you can replenish the front line with the reserves in the back. Ideally this will make attacks harder to pull off but you should get a feel of the backwards and forwards of a battle. Limiting the number of dice also gives you more control of your losses.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    Limiting the number of dice in land battles does not really help defender or attacker as long as there is not a real difference in attacking value. It does however make the game a lot longer as battles take forever that way. Now you just roll 40 dice a turn that is pretty quick takes like 15 seconds for each side. Rolling 20 dice each then ajust your battle line roll 20 again. You get less hits so it just takes a lot longer to get through a line.

    I will test this first but from my calculations, it will due to the difference in attack values and combined arms bonuses. But I want to try it out first.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    What will happen is dat people start estimating the number of hits the opponent will do, take that many inf + 2 in their line and then add as many bombers, tanks, tacticals to the mix as possible.

    It wil mixed armies that have loads of inf and some other heavy hitters stronger and armies that consist most of 1-2 unit types ( inf/art ) somewhat weaker.

    In that respect i might want to come back to not helping anyone, i think the attacker might have the advantage here as it removes a lot of the defeners hit power while it hardly removes attackers hit power.

    How does it remove defender hit power? You still have you infantry defending on 2 and if the attacked sends tanks and other heavy hitters, he will lose them first. And it is quite fitting actually, you send the armoured spearhead in front and the infantry will follow.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    The attacker will chose to lose his inf first, he takes just enough in his front line to take the estimated number of defensive hits. And then replace those with inf again.

    Consider the following theoretical armies, using low luck and the lower bounds for theory crafting purposes.

    30 inf 10 bombers VS 40 inf.
    Current attack power 70 vs 80 defence  So 11 vs 13 hits approx with low luck,
    Round 2 17 inf + 10  att 57 bombers vs 29 inf def 54  so 9 vs 9 hits
    round 3  8 inf + 10 bombers 48 vs  20 inf 40  8 vs 6 hits
    round 4 2 inf 10 bombesr 42 vs 12 inf 24 hits  7 vs 4 hits
    round 4 8 bombers 32 vs 5 inf 10   5 hits vs 1
    Result 7 bombers left.

    With your rule.
    Attack power 50 vs defence 40 so 8 hits vs 6 hits.
    Round 2 24 inf + 10 bombers  effective 50 power, VS 32 inf effective power 40 8 vs 6
    round 3 18 inf 10 bombers effective 50 power vs 24 inf effective 40  8 vs 6
    round 4 12 inf 10 bombers effective 50 vs 16 inf effective 32  8 vs 5
    round 5 7 inf 10 bombers effective 47 vs 8 inf effective 16 7 vs 3
    round 4 4 inf 10 bombers vs 1 inf ( ill give you 1 hit
    Result 3 inf 10 bombers left.

    You will win both engagements but it will be painfull in the first situation where with your rules it will costs you a lot less.
    Ofcourse it is simulated where i used LowLuck dice and always rounded down but this is just an example, to sum up why it helps the attacker in big battles.
    It isnt shocking result but if you add 10 inf to each side the difference grows even more.
    It effectively changes the value in attack/defence of infantry where you would need a mix of inf fighters on defence and inf + bombers on offense. Art is useless and tanks are only reasonable.

    How would this apply to naval warfare? What if you attack with 20 subs and he got 10 full carriers. 20 subs vs 20 fighters nobody can ever hit.

    your results are accurate and as I said, I need testing. The thread title is a bit confusing since this rule is meant for land combat only. I was just thinking of different ways to make the game more different from play to play and more dynamic.

    Also air power in ground combat still needs to be looked at since I don’t think it should count to the total number of units BUT there should be a limit at how many can operate at one time imho. Plus, I have this crazy idea where fighters and bombers would duke it out previous to ground battle to see if bombers can attack ground units or not.

    Something like If you have fighters in a province or the opportunity to scramble them, then Bombers and escorts would have to defend against enemy fighters and then engage ground units after those rolls dictate how many are shot down. This would make taking bombers without escort suicidal against air cover as it should be.

  • '17 '16


  • @Baron:

    Food for thoughts:
    Air Superiority Round
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37471.msg1509399#msg1509399

    Thanks. That is similar with what I had in mind :) cool.

    I would change something though. For aircraft, make the attack and defence roles a Aerial combat and ground combat role.

    Fighters would get 1 or 2 (maybe 2 with combined arms) ground attack and 4 air attack. Can air scramble and escort

    Tac Bombers would get 3 ground attack (or 4 with combined arms bonus) and 2 air attack. Cannot air scramble. Can scramble to participate in ground defence in adjacent province.

    Str bombers would get 1 air attack. Cannot Scramble.

    Fighters would represent a mix of pure fighters and ground attack fighters usually with one bomb in central fuselage or a couple of light bombs in the wings. Tac bombers would be the dive bombers and small frontline bombers and Str bombers would be Str Bombers

    Now for the strategic bomber, I love your idea of them having 1 attack on first round. I first thought to give bombers the ability to attack only every two turns but this is even better. Truth is strategic bombers were not used on front line duties too often.

    But I had a slightly different idea that improves on yours where Str bombers will have the option to attack inf on the strategic bombing phase where you can choose to target ground units at half their attack value (so a 2) or factories. They would not be able to participate on the combat round. This corresponds to the bombing of hardened positions and troop concentration areas. This means that cannot be shot at by ground units either. So they could only be attacked by AAA or enemy fighters intercepting.

    Tac bombers may also be used in strategic bombing but they would have to do half damage depending if they targeted ground units or Industry.
    for 3 IC damage or a roll of 1 depending if they targeted units of industry.

    Combat would then have the following structure:
    Air movement
    AAA guns fire.
    Air interceptions happen.
    Strategic bombing phase for bombers.
    Ground movement.
    Ground combat where remaining non strategic air forces engage.

    The ground combat would be separated in two turns:
    Air turn where the defending fighters and attacking planes engage.
    Ground turn where tactical bombers not destroyed in aerial combat any defending fighters not engaged in air combat can attack here too.

    This is great. This would literally force Axis players to keep aircraft in Western Europe as Strategic bombing would be much more severe. Plus it would make ground combat more dependant on the aerial results.

    So in short my next game will include a mix of the following mechanics:

    Spotting roll for fleet combat:
    roll of 3 for normal fleet vs fleet
    roll of 2 for single non capital ships and subs
    a +1 modifier if there has been combat in that region (so if Germany engages one fleet of the UK on turn 1 and destroys it, next round UK player will need to roll a 4 to discover German fleet).
    If spotted, subs can be attacked by any unit for one round before diving away.

    Capital ships take two turns to build:
    Capital ships were a big investment and so they should require more planning to field.

    Air combat modifications:
    Air combat values would be different representing air and ground combat values. Makes more sense than attack and defence for air units imho.
    Strategic air combat modifications as mentioned above.

    Limited number of dice:
    Combat can only see so many troops at any one time. This will make combat more dynamic as less units can be deployed at once and the notion of reserves comes into play… Maybe with the added twist that the defender or attacker can choose to disengage with the reserves moving them to the province adjacent to them.
    This idea came to me after playing Star Wars: Rebellion where limited dice exist. it makes quite a difference.

    Looks good. Getting excited about my next match :)

  • '17 '16

    On air combat, you can get a real feel of it without a round one pre-regular ground combat (as above).

    Here is one of the 4 possibilities. (1 above, 2 below and 1914 dogfight) Below is not that complex when you roll aircraft first at the beginning of each combat round.
    If no defending plane, most attack rolls casualty apply as usual, except for Tactical Bomber:

    @Baron:

    Below is what I have in mind for change from previous values and to reduced to reasonable range heavy strategic bomber and medium.
    Dark Skies showed that range and projection of power is to be limited for bombers.
    This is made for 3 planes carrier game.

    FIGHTER A2 D2-3 M4, same in SBR Cost 6
    Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available, then AAA, and finally other kind of units.
    Fighter as part of an extended Air Defense System:
    1 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (for 1942.2, 2 Fgs can scramble from an Air Base/Victory City instead.)
    SBR/TcBR Attack @2, Defend @2, or even Defend @3 for 1 Fg if an operational Air Base is present.
    Can scramble in adjacent SZ up to 4 Fgs: 3 defend @2 and 1 defend @3, getting the +1 Defense bonus from an operational Air Base.

    TACTICAL BOMBER A3 D2 M4 Cost 8
    All hits are allocated to any ground units of your choice.
    This can makes for Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber” and “Tank Buster”:

    SBR/TcBR Attack @2,
    Allowed to do escort mission for Strategic Bomber without doing Tactical Bombing Raid on Air Base or Naval Base,
    Cannot do interception mission on defense,
    TcBR damage: 1D6.

    Medium BOMBER
    Attack 2** AA1*
    Defense 1
    Move 6
    Cost 8
    *In regular combat, if any enemy’s aircraft, gets an additional Attack @1 against aircraft, each combat round.
    All hits are allocated to any ground units of your choice

    Strategic Bombing Raid
    SBR/ TBR : Attack @1
    SBR/ TBR damage: 1D6 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

    **Antisub air search and destruction (attacking sub by itself, with no DD to block Sub): on a 2 or less roll hit submarine before it submerge.

    Heavy Strategic BOMBER
    Attack 4 AA1*
    Defense 1
    Move 6
    Cost 10
    *In regular combat, if any enemy’s aircraft, gets an additional Attack 1 against aircraft, each combat round.
    Strategic Bombing Raid
    SBR/ TBR : Attack @1 first strike against up to 2 fighters, whichever the lesser, similar to AAA.
    SBR/ TBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

    Summary of SBR/TcBR escort and intercept combat values:
    Fighter: Attack 2 Defense 2 or 3 (+1 to 1 Fg from an operational Air Base)
    Tactical Bomber: Attack 2 Defense 0
    Bomber Medium: Attack 1 Defense 0
    Strategic Bomber Heavy: Attack 1 first strike, as AA gun against up to 2 Fgs, Defense 0

    Another method for air combat inside regular combat:
    A different one played with 2-planes carrier (there is much more in the original post but I just wanted to provide a glimpse):
    @Baron:

    FIGHTER A3 D4 M4, SBR A2 D2 Cost 8
    Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft: All “1” and “2” rolls are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available, then AAA, and finally other kind of units (owner’s choice).
    Fighter as part of an extended Air Defense System:
    1942.2, 1 Fg can scramble from an Air Base/Victory City.
    SBR/TcBR Attack @2, Defend @2.

    TACTICAL BOMBER A4 D3 M4 Cost 10
    All “1” rolls are allocated to any aircraft OR ground units of your choice,
    All “2” rolls are allocated to any ground units of your choice.
    This can makes for Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber” and “Tank Buster”:

    1942.2, 1 TcB can scramble from an Air Base/Victory City.

    SBR/TcBR Attack @1 first strike,
    Allowed to do escort mission of Strategic Bomber without doing Tactical Bombing Raid on Air Base or Naval Base,
    Bombers (StB or TcB) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
    Cannot do interception mission on defense,
    TcBR damage: 1D6.

    Strategic BOMBER A4 D1 M6 Cost 10
    All “1” rolls are allocated to any aircraft OR ground units of your choice.

    Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR*)/ TBR : Attack @1 first strike against up to 2 fighters, whichever the lesser, similar to AAA.
    SBR/TBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

    Re: Rethinking Air Units
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34502.msg1331015#msg1331015

    SBR/TcBR escort and intercept combat values:
    Fighter: Attack 2 Defense 2
    Tactical Bomber: Attack 1 first strike Defense 0
    Strategic Bomber: Attack 1 first strike , as AA gun against up to 2 Fgs, Defense 0


    I would allow 2 types of defensive maneuvers for aircraft.
    DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed for 2 or 3 types of aircraft:

    • Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle),

    • Limited landing in a just conquered territory (which includes at least 1 ground unit): 1 plane (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as each unit can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.

    These features and combat values have also been summarized in the attached document below and a modified set-up for 1942.2 is also available. There is also a correction for AAA cost at 4 instead of 3 IPCs.

    From a nearer OOB POV, that later one is my preferred. Because you only have to watch “1 or 2” on aircraft rolls.
    But I always plays the former because I like the 3 planes Carrier dynamic.


  • @Baron:

    -SNIP-

    Interesting mechanics and I will definitely play around with it and steal some ideas.

    I still prefer the idea of having air and ground attack on airplanes and Str bombers only being able to attack ground units on the strategic phase.
    But that leads to attacking fighters having to roll differently for air or ground attack. Maybe declare it beforehand?

    Or just the simpler solution. As long as there are enemy air units present, the Fighter aircraft will always damage aircraft whereas the tac bomber will target ground targets. This could work.

    Now my thoughts of combining this with limited attack die. There should be a maximum number of attacking aircraft capable of participating in ground attack per turn as throwing 500 or 1000 aircraft at anything took considerable preparation irl too. Maybe a number of 5 air units per 20 ground units?

    Sorry to bother you but obviously you have a lot of thought poured into this game and I would love to hear your opinion on my ideas.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    As turns represent quite some time, and france was not taken or liberated in 1 day either they got plenty of time to plan large bombardments of many planes.
    There are many instances of prolonged bombardments spanning several days in various campaigns so an attack by 1000 aircraft over 3 month period is actualy not that weird.

    If you add 2 many new interesting rules to make it a combat simulation and think turns would be 1-2 days iso 3-6 months you have to redo the whole map.

    I am aware turns on map represent a long period of time on a battle though, different matter. Though one or two days is out of a question, each battle turn can represent one or two weaks with a couple of tweaks.

    And although 1000 aircraft were used over 3 months, they were not used all at the same time. They had personal rotations and equipment fixes, etc.

    I am merely trying to make this game able to provide different results than the normal so there is variation from game to game. It Keeps things interesting and I think provides a sense of narrative to the game. Let’s face it, the game is facing increasingly tough competition on the war game front with newer games providing much more variety and replay value. I love the combat system in this game and I want to provide a framework where replay value will be good.


  • There are plenty of combat games out there. From risk (meh) to the latest Star Wars: Rebellion that has some really interesting mechanics that make me want to play that game more than this one which is a shame because I began serious wargaming with this game. And I still think that for the scale this game represents, the basis of the combat system is very, very good.

    That and the fact that I just spent 150 euros or something on both games to get the global setup make me want to improve the game to its full potential.

    What you mention of using the same axis strategies that leads to the game playing the same is exactly the problem. Because those strategies give you the best chance to win the game. And if you as the axis use them, then you kinda force the allies on the defensive early on and the game is just the same again.

    Using different dice will not solve these problems and making a non combat move changes the initial condition which is fine because it gives you another game but, its a temporary fix. Just the spotting mechanic alone will completely change the way the game is played. That and changes to air combat and limited number of dice will make the game much less deterministic and increase the number of viable options per game. Which is what this is all about really.

    As I said, try a couple of turns with the simplified spotting mechanic:

    flat roll of 3 to detect enemy fleet
    2 for subs or lone non capital ships.
    If there has been combat in that sea area, add a +1.

    Just that. Then tell me if the game doesn’t feel completely different.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    You could just use techs and hope for good rolls to change the game.
    The problem with spotting is that 1 lucky roll can change the whole game, what if germany rolls 2 bad rolls round 1 for the royal navy? Your fleet is now exposed and well the UK has its complete fleet from the start of the turn.

    Changing the setup does indeed change the game somewhat but it is always a temporary fix untill everybody copies the same allied moves again. But at least it changed the game without having to relly on luck alone. With the naval rules you still end up with the same situation sometimes as you cannot expect to stay hidden.
    And well it really helps the axis because bombers and tanks become much more powerfull while inf becomes slightly weaker and art becomes worthless.

    If that happens then this system is successful imho. Because you can have at least different starts:
    1- Germany detects and kills both RN fleets.
    2- Germany gets none.
    3- Germany detects and engages one (50% chance of this happening).

    This will change the initial conditions a lot and make the game more interesting. And the point that it is a dice roll is thematic as hell as the detection of the opposing force was sometimes down to pure luck. And honestly, looking at the areas involved, early war a 2 might be a more realistic option since you are trying to find some ships in Sea areas the size of the UK. Even with nowadays tech, If you play the computer game Harpoon or Command: Modern Air and Naval Operations, Try a scenario where you put a battleship, and a couple of escorting light cruisers then you try to find them using subs and some aircraft (which will be hard to do since you will have no aircraft of the time that can go from Holland or Belgium to Glasgow in one fuel tank). Then report your results.

    With my other changes, bombers will not be as powerful (which corrects another flaw in the game). Actually, air power in general will be weaker and best used as a force multiplier for your ground forces. How does artillery become worthless? It still increases infantry attack power. And with limited dice you will need to boost infantry attack power now more than ever. Otherwise, you lower your chances of scoring a hit with them dramatically. I have been doing some statistical analysis on the limited dice and so far I like the results.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    Because you are better off using tanks and any tactical bombers that you can get your hands on. Inf is only there to soak hits so your heavy hitters get to do more damage.
    With 20 spots you can go for 10 inf and 10 art or 10 inf and 10 tanks. But on defence the tanks become more powerfull so unless you are down on cash you should take tanks.
    Or are you going to change the rules for ground attack aircraft as well?

    As you cannot expect your opponent to roll badly it will not change the game much, it will just relly more on luck then on anything else if you win or lose. Same way techs change the game.

    Basicaly you want to change the whole combat mechanic of the current Axis&Allies game, why not also let the attacker deside what units he hits because lets get real a tactical bomber will know what it is attacking and so will a tank division.

    You want to check the battle of the buldge version of axis&allies it does just what you want. It is slightly more realistic as well and has nice combat mechanics where what you hit is also determined by dice and there is a stack limit for tiles.

    Of course you are better off. But, on the attack especially, artillery is still useful and Tanks are expensive. It is also not easy to think about this and the best way is to use a small computer code because you will have reinforcements.

    This needs testing but so far, the attacker does have an advantage to them being able to set up a large percentage of their force as tanks with enough infantry to cover the losses. Considering the normal scenario of an army of 10 tanks, 20 infantry and 10 art vs 40 infantry, attacker needs to keep 8 infantry on the board for casualties. As I said, I still need to test this idea further.

    Attacker deciding which units to hit is inconsistent with the scale of this game imho.
    I already submitted my ideas for changing aircraft intervention in ground combat.

    So far, by order of importance, I find that the naval spotting and the air combat changes are the most important to get different outcomes. Next match, I might not use limited combat dice.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 14
  • 5
  • 12
  • 13
  • 4
  • 7
  • 7
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

41

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts