New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively)

Here is 12 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

So, we have a big pile of new units and new rules, how shall we set up the board? I propose the following new setup for A&A Classic.

List of abbreviations:
ACav - Armored Cavalry
AirT - Air Transport
AKA - (sea) Transport
BB - Battleship
Bmbr - Bomber
CA - Cruiser
CV - Aircraft Carrier
Ftr - Fighter
HArt - Heavy Artillery
Para - Paratrooper
SS - Submarine
Trpr - Trooper

This setup assumes that you are playing with the Cruisers from Post 1 (links to relevant posts added below), the Paratroopers and Air Transports from Post 2, the Armored Cavalry and Troopers from Post 3, and the Heavy Artillery from Post 4. The setup for Armored Cavalry, Troopers, and Heavy Artillery is ‘inspired’ by Ralph Boerke’s original setup for his Armored Cavalry, Troopers, and Heavy Artillery. This setup will place 1 Paratrooper and 1 Air Transport in the capital territories all nations, Germany will receive 1 additional Paratrooper and Air Transport in Rome (Southern Europe). This setup also assumes use of the “Boats Valve Fix” (BVF) proposed by D. A. Harrell from the mists of A&A history (I read about it from the re-post on Thrasher’s A&A page, which should give some history for those who remember Thrasher…). Also, this setup assumes the use of the variable British Sub setup. Furthermore, all CVs will receive a full complement of aircraft (2 Fighters) at setup; all sea zones with Transports or CVs will receive 1 Cruiser at setup, and all sea zones with Battleships will receive 1 (additional) Transport at setup.

@Boat:

In short, the Boat Valve Fix changes three things about Classic A&A - 1) optional “No Attack by Russia” made mandatory, 2) increase the number of German Subs in the Atlantic (off Western Europe) from 1 to 4, 3) increase the number of Japanese Transports in the Philippines Sea Zone from 1 to 4.

First, setup the game as normal. Nothing will be removed from the original setup. Then, add the noted pieces to the following territories as listed below:

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics
Russia (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, and 1 AirT
Karelia - 1 CA with SS and AKA already there
Sov. F. East - 1 Trpr and 1 ACav

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics

Germany
Germany (territory of) - 2 Trpr, 2 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 SS with SS and AKA already in the Baltic
Eastern Europe - 1 HArt
Ukraine - 1 ACav and 1 HArt
Southern Europe - 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 AKA added to the BB and AKA already at sea
Western Europe - 1 ACav, 1 HArt, and 3 SS added to the 1 SS already at sea
Libya - 1 ACav

Germany

United Kingdom
United Kingdom (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 AKA added to the BB and AKA already at sea
Eastern Canada - 1 CA with AKA already there
India - 1 Trpr and 1 CA with AKA already there
Gibraltar - 1 AKA added to the BB already at sea
Egypt - 1 ACav, also - (The UK player has the option to move the 1 UK SS already off the coast of Egypt from the Med to the Red Sea (aka, the other side of the Suez Canal) at setup. Once USSR starts taking its turn, choice is set for that game.)

United Kingdom

Empire of Japan
Japan (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, and 1 CA, 1 SS, and 1 AKA with BB and AKA already at sea
Manchuria - 1 Trpr and 1 ACav
Fr. In. Burma - 1 ACav
Phil. I’s - 1 CA and 3 AKA added to the AKA already at sea
Kwangtung - 1 ACav
Caro. I’s - 1 CA, 1 Ftr, and 1 AKA with BB, CV, and Ftr already at sea
Solo. I’s - 1 SS added to the 1 SS already at sea

Empire of Japan

United States of America
Eastern US - 2 Trpr, 1 Para, 1 AirT, and 1 CA with AKA already at sea
Western US - 2 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 CA, 1 SS, and 1 AKA with BB and AKA already at sea
Hawaii - 1 CA, and 1 Ftr with SS, CV, and Ftr already at sea

United States of America

Posts
Post 1 - Cruisers - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41100.0
Post 2 - Paratroopers and Air Transports - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41101.0
Post 3 - Armored Cavalry and Troopers - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41157.0
Post 4 - Heavy Artillery - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41158.0

One more post (Neutral Countries and what to be done with them), and I think I’ll have posted about all of my personal rule collection for Classic. Looking forward to wrapping all of this up and putting together a comprehensive rule book of changes.

-Midnight_Reaper

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

@SS:

This is what we have in game now.

Bombers C10
H Bombers C12

Bomber     D6  1-6  3.5 ave  6 max dam 1 lowest dam

H Bomber  D6+2  1-8  4.5 ave   8 max dam  3 lowest dam

This is the change I’m putting in next game.

Bomber    D8  1-8   4.5 ave    8 max dam  1 lowest dam

H Bomber  D10  1-10  5.5 ave  10 max dam  1 lowest dam

Nice +1 dmg increase.
To your game, it fit perfectly well with no bonus, only 1 dice to roll.

I like the fact that heavy bomber get a wider range from 1 to 10.
I don’t think heavy (high altitude bomber) were more accurate than bomber.
Probably due to the high altitude of bombing.

@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.

@Black_Elk:

That’s a clean map Ryuzaki_Lawlie!

The color selection is ideal. Though the black impassibles still jump out at me

From a design standpoint the only things that catch my eye are the two round sea zones surrounding Japan and Hawaii.

It feel like you need one in the Atlantic to balance things out aesthetically. Have you considered the possibility of one surrounding the British Isles?

Or maybe Iceland? Or maybe both?

I still think Mercator is a bit tight in Europe, a little stretching there might be ideal, even if it was just along the vertical axis. I think the map would still read fine, but you’d get a few more pixel for units into those key European spots. Also if you were willing to shrink South America slightly you could almost curve off a 10th of the map height at the bottom of the screen (which is notorious for players forgetting units in the south sea hehe) without really needing to change Africa/Australia of the pacific. Basically a slight bend would go a long way, even if using Mercator for the baseline.

Oh and I think the possession colors for Dutch Borneo and British Sarawak and North Borneo should be reversed.

My only suggestions :)

Nice work man. That would be a fun map to form the basis of a 1939 game, or any year from 39 on.

I like that you have not yet imposed on the map any extraneous information such as IPC values or VC. This means the map is adaptive for many purposes. I like the general division of territories. Only that the projection is a bit large at the poles for my tastes. If we could shrink them up slightly I think the map would be ideal. Its really more about screen dimension for me when it comes to the Big World Map that Wandering Head made. These days most screens are very long relative to their height, so standard Mercator always seems blown out a bit in tripleA to me, especially at the south end, and of course Europe is always tight. I wish the center picker for tripleA was better at housing units to smaller scales. Its a little better than it used to be, especially with the guiding lines, but still Europe loves to clutter up haha.
:-D

Again though, great design direction!

I’ll probably shift the continents (turning their general direction), and stretch out northern Africa and Europe, will probably require North America to get a bit skinny, but I think the big benefit from this, is that potentially more European spaces can be added. This will allow me to add more to the Mediterranean however (and it really needs the space), perhaps round out where Rome is. Africa, I think needs a bit more work. South America possibly as well, but I sort of need an idea of which cities can be considered major not only there, but elsewhere. Vladivostok will defiantly get added in with it’s own space.

I picked black for impassables, since it tells me that there is nothing there, no play space, it’s simply temporary, and they are there for the designer’s benefit.

I’m not sure where else to put a rounded Sea Zone, I’m considering more though.

Coach I would go with the scale you use for tactical bombers. Even though there is no intention to use them with WWII era aircraft, sizing them in the tactical bomber scale provides a more consistent line-up between products. In other words there are many who use HBG pieces for many uses and would like the consistency of scale that HBG provides with your other product’s. IMO it keeps the product line more linear.

Some people made them into technology, but i like them just as new pieces. and Table tactics makes mines already.

Another way to make it more fair.  Give Japan all of the Western hemisphere US territories.

The way you have it set up is:

Ger + UK + 50 % of US.

vs the original setup of GER + Jpn.

In my estimation, Ger + (any other country) makes it an interesting and usually fair game.  Adding any more to that will unbalance the economics and/or require a military offset.  You may want to also shift the order of nations in the round to prevent the taking of capitals at the game outset.