@superbattleshipyamato Right. alot more complications introduces longer play. More areas means longer play, More units longer play. I wish their was a light 12 page version with only about 6-10 more units, not 60 more. The map would have about 60% less areas and play would take 2-3 hours but still be buckets of dice concept. That would be my wish plus dedicated piece sets or a version that used counters like nova games edition.
Blitz Support
-
I play the HBG Global 36/39 version of Global Axis and Allies. (Look away SS before your eyes burn :-) ) I have several of the additional pieces they make including light tanks, SPG, and tank destroyers for all nations. One of the problems with these pieces is their increase cost does not justify their purchase over the basic units. (This is true in the SPG and TD case.) I was looking at ways to improve the use of these units. I was thinking of trying the following rule and would like feedback.
“Blitz Support” - any unit tagged with this ability can participate in a blitz but can not initiate a blitz. A unit with blitz support can pair with a blitzing armor at a 1:1 basis. This pairing does not interfere with that armor ability to pair with a mechanized. Support units based on their use during a blitz must be taken last as casualties.
Lt armor, SPG, tank destroyers, and armored cars would all be listed as blitz support. My biggest concern was adding attrition style kills (armored cars cost 3 IPP same as INF) to a blitzing stack so I included a caveat that they cannot be taken as casualties until the end of combat. However this allows 2 Medium tanks to blitz with a 6 unit force now which makes defense in depth issues in Russia much more complicated. I am concern this rule could make a Russian defense much more difficult.
I think I will introduce this rule at our next game and see if the group wants to try it, however I would also like feedback if it is a good idea or completely unbalancing.
-
:evil: I’m trying :-o. Aaahhhh there’s my eye drops !
-
I like the idea but it sounds like you already answered your question w.r.t. Russian defense. We don’t have those units, but here are a couple of comments…
My biggest concern was adding attrition style kills (armored cars cost 3 IPP same as INF) to a blitzing stack so I included a caveat that they cannot be taken as casualties until the end of combat.
I get it - saving the med armor casualties for last makes blitzing significantly more powerful than it already is. I like to have at least a somewhat realistic basis when adding rules (helps me remember them). For this one, I would say that the support vehicles are slower than tanks, so end up behind them by the time they get to a battle. It would be awesome 8-) if that were true in real life. I’m not familiar with those units, though, so can’t say.
2 Medium tanks to blitz with a 6 unit force
This seems pretty OP. What about limiting med tanks to 2 support vehicles and light tanks to 1 support vehicle. If that’s still too much, then limit to 1 support per med tank and 0 per light tank. To see which provides better balance would require some trial runs or an analysis of the 36 and 39 setups for Germany and Russia.
-
Light’s can not blitz but I would allow them to support a blitz.
1 Medium Tank could add 1 Mech (as per current rules) and 1 Lt Arm., SPG (arty), or 1 Arm. Car (recon). So the 2 Medium armor would blitz with 2 Lt tanks and 2 mechanized for instance.
On casualties the SPG would support from the rear with indirect fire and recon elements (the light tanks and armor cars) would be used to find the enemy but not engage. The actual fighting would have been conducted by medium tanks and the mech inf. However the reason for the rule is to avoid giving Armor more fodder unit on a blitz.
AN other option is to expand the list of unit that can pair with a medium from just Mech Inf to Mech Inf plus all the addition armor units. This would replace Mech with Armor Cars as they have a 3 attack and cost 3 rather than a 2 attack and cost 4 like the mech inf.
My group will try the rules out and see how they play. Could be fun could be a disaster. :)
-
Let us know how it goes!
-
AN other option is to expand the list of unit that can pair with a medium from just Mech Inf to Mech Inf plus all the addition armor units. This would replace Mech with Armor Cars as they have a 3 attack and cost 3 rather than a 2 attack and cost 4 like the mech inf.
For ballance I would mantain the ratio of blitzing vehicles.
Medium/Heavy tanks 1:1 blitz pair. A single mech infantry, armoured car, self propelled arty and light tank are all vehicle bound troops. And should be able to pair equally for the blitz. So long as the ratio stays the same 1 unit per blitzing Med.tank. I would allow advanced mech only to add itself for the bonus vehicle.
However cavalry and motorized infantry ride to battle and dismount to fight so should not blitz.Examples for blitz pairing:
1 Med tank : 1 mech and 1 advanced mech (attack 6/3/4)
1 Med tank : 1 light tank and 1 advanced mech (attack 6/4/4)
1 Med tank : 1 self propelled arty and 1 advanced mech (attack 6/4/4)
1 Med tank : 1 armoured car and 1 advanced mech (attack 6/3/4)
1 Med tank : 2 advanced mechs (attack 6/4/4)This should be a relatively balanced setup. Any nation could use it but will give a realistic offset to the cost of these alternative units. Katyushka arty is rarely purchased due to its limited use per cost by Russia and this would increase its effect and thus its purchasing.
Hopefully our group will allow a trial run
-
Rank, I like your examples above. We’re going to try this as well. As you say, it helps justify the cost. Have you tried it yet, and if so, what did you think of it? Too over-powered, or “just right” because of the cost of the upgraded units?
-
A lot of issues go away if you go to a D-12 system…I even like D-12 for A&A G 40
As for blitz…I allow SP, Mech and all tanks that ability…TD I give target selection on a 3 (1) to make them worth the purchase -
DmcLaren
Still haven’t tried it. Let me know if it works out. Good luck! -
This is not related to the on-going blitz debate, but here goes:
Disclaimer: I’m not a fan of complicating things for complexitys own sake. If it doesn’t fix something, or add more fun…
Why not discuss it with the game designers? They welcome feedback very much, and - like you and I - aim to create the best possible gaming experience.
I’ve had such discussions with them about the convoying/escorting rules myself.
(Btw. Look for these changes in the next version of the rules :mrgreen: ) -
Munck
Excellent idea! Funny how obvious that is.
Looking forward to seeing thosr changes. -
Rank,
If you check out the Facebook page for Global War, they have actually just asked about “game reports” and opinions about what works well, and what doesn’t.
Suggested Topics
