(Anniversary-1941) Chicago rules - Base Rule changes

@Argothair:

Hey ClassicDude,

We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

Cheers,
Argo

Yes I think that this is something we can agree on. However I am still willing to test out your ideas.

I so far think that tanks costing 5 IPCs is very solid.

This actually makes the tank a worthwhile investment. For instance:

for 15 IPCs you can buy 5 infantry or 3 tanks. Based on average dice rolls:
5 infantry would hit 0.85 times on offense, 1.65 times on defense
3 tanks would hit 1.5 times on offense, 1.5 times on defense.

The defensive values are similar, meaning that infantry on defense is still a better investment since there are more of them, they can absorb more hits from attacking tanks! Personally all this does is take tanks and makes them a considered buy instead of the ol’ infantry only buy since tanks in older versions of the game were so neutered on defense. They are now equal value to infantry because what you are paying extra for is the increased mobility. Even looking at the numbers for if 5 infantry attack the three tanks, it is very close, with a slight advantage given to the defending tanks.

So we are still seeing that if money invested is equal, defense has an advantage as far as infantry and tanks are concerned.

Also if we increase the money to 35 IPCs and our purchases now include artillery:
5 infantry
5 Artillery (combined offensive of 3.3 hits and 3.3 hits on defense)

7 tanks 3.5 hits on offense, 3.5 on defense

If the tanks attack the infantry and artillery on average the 10 unit stack will win, with 3-4 pieces remaining.

If the infantry and artillery attack, on average they can still win with 3-4 units remaining. So artillery tip the balance of power over to infantry again with their ability to raise the infantry’s attack.

Tanks literally are costing more solely for movement capability, a tank only purchase strategy only works if you have the economy to spend more money than the other guy. If the money spent is equal, tanks still lose.

You said that Submarmines need to be in the pen for protection. That means they are shielded from destroyer + air attacks?

I believe this thread below may provides some additional ideas and concept such as “double dipping”.
So I bumped it to reactive this TT income bonus thread.
Territory Income Bonus: for Classic, Revised, 1941/42.2 etc
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31978.msg1190315#msg1190315

@Tamer:

I like your original idea, but what about carriers?  They were the most important ships to keep afloat during the war, and a great deal of repair was done for them as well.

I do not recall any instance off-hand during the war in which a carrier was re-floated after having been sunk and then returned to active service.

The Amagi and Graf Zeppelin were both sunk and re-floated, but neither saw active service during the war and Graf Zeppelin wasn’t even complete.

The re-floating idea is kind of cool, but it may need to be reduced somehow to make it a more rare occurrence. As Marc said, it was a long and expensive process and not every ship that was sunk qualified for such a salvage operation. Unfortunately with A&A, we do not have the granularity in gameplay to determine how badly ships are damaged.

I suppose that you could modify the rule so that after combat you need to roll for each ship lost to determine IF it can be salvaged. Say you need a 2 or less to float a given ship. If you roll that, then you can decide to pay half to re-float.

It complicates things, but definitely makes it so you can’t just regenerate 2 battleships and 3 cruisers if you want.

I will offer another limitation that sounds logical to me, but you can consider:

Ships may only be raised on the following turn and to do so, there may not be any hostile warships in the sea zone where the ships were sunk. This implies that any ships not raised the following turn will be lost forever, as you said, and that the territory with your naval base cannot be taken by the enemy in that time.

Example:    Gibraltar is amphib assaulted by Italy. All UK warships are destroyed. Italy has no warships present in sea zone, only transports. Italy takes Gibraltar. US player lands and liberates Gibraltar on their turn, returning it to UK control. The UK player cannot then re-float ships lost in previous turn combat with Italy because they did not retain full control of Gibraltar.

Somewhat complicated perhaps, but I think some of these limitations need to be placed, otherwise I see this as being a huge advantage for the Axis. Germany and Italy in particular, because they tend to hole up their navies in home water areas and can potentially get double the naval power at half the cost. It will further incentivize them to stock up and stay in port knowing they can effectively respawn capital ships on the cheap. An element of chance and tactical consideration should be added so that it isn’t just automatic.

INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES

Minor IC COST: 8 UPGRADE COST: 7

Can produce: Militia, Infantry, Artillery, Anti Aircraft Guns, Fighters, Transports, Submarines, and Destroyers

Major IC  COST: 15

Can produce: ALL OF THE ABOVE PLUS: Tanks, Bombers, Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers and Battleships

An Industrial Complex (IC) can be built on any territory that your Power has controlled since the start of your turn. Minor ICs may only be built on a territory with a value of 1 IPC or more. Major ICs must be built on a territory with a value of 3 IPC or more. There is a limit of one IC per territory. The cost to upgrade a Minor IC into a Major IC is 7 IPCs.

Newly purchased land and air units must be placed into the territory with the IC. Sea units can only be placed into a sea zone adjacent to the territory with the IC, so long as there is a Naval Base on the territory coastline that touches the sea zone.

For example, the IC in the territory of North Italy is adjacent to two sea zones; SZ 27 and SZ 28. However, as the Naval Base in North Italy is sitting on the coastline that touches SZ 27, newly purchased naval units can only be placed into SZ 27. If the player controlling Italy bought another Naval Base and placed it on the coastline touching SZ 28, then he/she would be able to place new naval units into SZ 28 as well.

IC placement.jpg

@Micoom:

Germany had Already Radar in place to defend the “Atlantic wall” in Early 1941, long before “Barbarossa” would begin… So Radar shouldn’t be a UK advantage at all in a 1942 scenario. Only in a 1939…

We are working here on a Historical edition for A&A, so for this game timelines are essential and therefore more important then game flexibility, IMO.

Germany had short wave radar only, hence did not pick up a signal on airplanes being long away and the warning was too late sometimes!

OK TBB, ther are a few sights that offer tactical insight. Do an axis and allies search to find these. Look for Don Rae’s essays if you have some time on your hands. Silex offers a good map. Also look in the games section of this site to see how some experienced people play. Some of the posts in player help and axis and allies could be useful. Have fun!