Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition) Phase one proposal (draft)


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    How is this any more realistic than what I proposed?

    I like the idea of giving ‘an out’ to either side… Russia can break the treaty without penalty if all red territories+Germany+Southern Europe are all Allied occupied at that time. Japan can break the treaty without penalty if all yellow territories+China+Sinkiang+India are all occupied by the Axis at the time of breaking the treaty.

    Ok during the war neither side defected to the “other side” also in 1939 soviets led by Zhukov clashed with the Kwantung Army in northern Manchukou with the japanese being the aggressor… Result: The japanese were totally smashed to pieces and learned an important lesson that they would never repeat… they decided not to go with the northern strategy advocated by the army, instead they went for a conflict with the navies plan which was to surprise the US pac fleet and sink it hoping that they would sue for peace. Their is not way in hell that the japanese would choose both courses of action… that would have led to national suicide. The army all ready had seen the fighting in China lead to a battle of attrition and to just open up another campaign in worthless land or the Russian eastern territories was basically the biggest waste of resources possible.

    Your plan somehow removes up to 12 infantry ( does Japan even start with this?) and gives them to the Soviets? huh? why  defectors? This project has to be historical and based on what actually happened… optional rules could cover the “what ifs” but this idea of defectors is not at all what could have been remotely possible. Whats wrong with some of the other ideas>?

    Andersson will post shortly… not to worry…

    BTW the neutral aid rules have a few things as well…

    Ill save that for another post.



  • Your plan somehow removes up to 12 infantry ( does Japan even start with this?) and gives them to the Soviets? huh? why  defectors? This project has to be historical and based on what actually happened… optional rules could cover the “what ifs” but this idea of defectors is not at all what could have been remotely possible. Whats wrong with some of the other ideas>?

    I think you misunderstand my rule. The nation that doesn’t break the treaty rolls 2 dice and takes the lower of the 2 rolls. This means that:
    (a) the most number of infantry that can defect is 6. Although the net effect of this is a loss of 6 and a gain of 6 to the other side which is 12, no side ever loses 12 infantry.
    (b) the odds of losing 6 infantry is 1/36. More than half the time it will be 1 or 2 infantry defecting for a net change of 2 or 4 infantry, respectively. This is far from a game-changer but enough to make it a serious deterrent.

    Why allow infantry to magically appear (OOB rules) when you can have them just come from the opposing side? I say this is more realistic than the OOB rules. At least the units are coming from a real source. I don’t think it’s possible to simulate a real penalty for this so maybe we shouldn’t have one. Maybe we could just have a list of conditions that need to be satisfied before the treaty can be broken, but when it is broken there is no penalty. This would be rrealistic IMO.



  • How about this?

    Russia can only attack/fly over/move into a yellow or Japanese controlled territory when any or all of the following conditions apply:

    1. Russia can break the treaty without penalty if all red territories+Germany+Southern Europe are all Allied occupied at that time.
    2. The total IPC value of all Japanese ground units in the territory being attacked is less than 1/3 the total IPC value of all Russian ground units attacking that territory.

    Japan can only attack/fly over/move into a red or Russian controlled territory when any or all of the following conditions apply:

    1. Japan can break the treaty without penalty if all yellow territories+China+Sinkiang+India are all Axis occupied at that time.
    2. The total IPC value of all Russian ground units in the territory being attacked is less than 1/3 the total IPC value of all Japanese ground units attacking that territory.

    The 2nd condition for each is to simulate a buildup of troops so Russia doesn’t exploit the treaty and not reinforce the front as much as they should. It also allows the possibility of the treaty to be broken early in the game if 1 side becomes lax. Notice that only ground troops are counted so high priced air/naval units don’t over-inflate the advantage for the attacker.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yes this last post is much better!

    the rationale presents each side with a much better historical situation that would ALLOW the treaty to work. I accept the conclusion but the wording to get just the perfect list of what needs to be captured for the Japanese side may be necessary. AS you may remember the Soviets only ventured into Manchuria in order to make claims on lost territory ceded during the Japan-Russo war of 1904. In that war the Soviets (then Russians) lost the Shaklin Islands (spelling?) and wanted a place at the peace treaty just to gain some of that territory back. So in a historical context the attack on Japan in Aug 1945 was for this purpose. Stalin had no intention of fighting both the Germans and Japanese at the same time. He left two front wars for Hitler to engage in because its stupid to fight wars with limited resources.

    The idea that japan has to accomplish a list of conquests before any action taken against the Soviets makes alot of good sense.

    Japan should have to take out China, India, and Australia and selected islands before they could be in the position to attack the Soviets. This would be conjoined with our national victory conditions… right?

    Also, sorry i was not reading your post on the penalty correctly… I have limited time sometimes and my posts suffer from it. Your rule is fine, but we have to have some combat modifier as well…  What should actually happen is to create a NA for the “Siberian eastern army” which must stay at the eastern border until a certain turn. It would gain some modifier in combat against Japanese forces because they were much better trained soldiers and knew how to fight in frozen environments, while the Japanese clearly did not have a clue.

    Idea:

    The Soviets get some fixed army (research needs to be done) I think it should consist of:

    4 infantry
    1 armor
    1 artillery
    1 fighter

    this would presumably be the siberian army ( again research)

    your idea of the Germans having to be captured for a soviet attack is historical (germany lost in may 11 45, Soviets transfered the army to Manchuria and attacked on about Aug 6th 1945.

    I would be noted that we dropped the A-bomb for many reasons and one of the main reasons was because we wanted the japanese to quickly surrender because we didnt want to Soviets to get too far into japanese territories and didnt want that area to turn into a 3rd world war. WE dropped the bomb because we wanted a quick surrender, because the Soviets were a competing ally that had its own agenda ( which brings up national victory conditions)



  • Japan should have to take out China, India, and Australia and selected islands before they could be in the position to attack the Soviets. This would be conjoined with our national victory conditions… right?

    Should it really be that hard for the Japanese to break the treaty. Remember, with the new rules for infantry placement it’s a lot harder to take China, Sinkiang and Australia. Is there any evidence as to when the Japanese would have broken the treaty? I thought they just wanted to completely take out China first (which they never did). Would they have gone after Australia and/or India before Russia? Didn’t they kind of have an obligation to their German ally to cause Russia to fight a 2 front war?

    I think we’re looking at an avg of about turn 6-7 until Japan has China+Sink+India. If we add Australia to the list, that won’t happen until turn 10 at the earliest IMO.

    What if we have it that Japan can break it when they have China+Sink+ either India or Australia? Leaves more options that way.



  • I know the western allies couldn’t send ground troops into Russian territory, but could they send planes? US/UK planes for defense in Russia is a typical strategy in A&A. If it’s true that it’s realistic to say they can’t send those planes, then that would improve the balance a lot more (Russia would fall easier).


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Should it really be that hard for the Japanese to break the treaty. Remember, with the new rules for infantry placement it’s a lot harder to take China, Sinkiang and Australia. Is there any evidence as to when the Japanese would have broken the treaty? I thought they just wanted to completely take out China first (which they never did). Would they have gone after Australia and/or India before Russia? Didn’t they kind of have an obligation to their German ally to cause Russia to fight a 2 front war?

    I think we’re looking at an avg of about turn 6-7 until Japan has China+Sink+India. If we add Australia to the list, that won’t happen until turn 10 at the earliest IMO.

    What if we have it that Japan can break it when they have China+Sink+ either India or Australia? Leaves more options that way.

    OK Ill give you the military mindset for Japan:

    They were faced with growing an Imperial policy of conquest and subjugation of all Asian nations under the rule of Japan. Second was to remove all colonial interference from any powers that were not truly Asian. Japan saw her place in the hierarchy of superior values cultivated by the code of Bushido and the samurai spirit. The realistic plan they engaged in was to establish a pan- Asian commenwealth with economic domination by the empire of Japan. This plan was debated by both the Army and navy to find the proper solution. In fact these were competing interests and they did little to coordinate national military policy. They both saw the options which were as follows:

    1. In order to establish markets the need  exploit the labor in China was needed and this was to be conquered. The act of doing this was beyond the capabilities of the Japanese military complex.
    2. The Army favored a solution including taking and concentration of forces on the mainland to finish off The British hold on India and remove any European influence in Asia. Also, the war with China needed to be brought to a conclusion.
    3. The Japanese army also looked into attacking the Soviets… They tried this tactic at the border in a major clash with experienced Soviet troops dug in and were fully beaten. This sent a jolt into the character of what the Japanese army was capable of and as a result they lost face from the central government for the time being for their “strategic Solution”
    4. The Naval commanders came up with a plan of conquest using the existing fleet to capture oil of the dutch Indies and islands with the strategy of turning each island into a fortress so that the approaches to the mainland Japan would not ever be possible. This necessitated a clash with the major power in the pacific which was USA.
    5. So the japanese military government decided that it would not venture into the Soviet Union because the Army was not ready to contribute the national resources to enable the Japanese establish this empire in asia…so
    6. They then decided that they would attack USA and let the Navy have a try at bringing Japan the result it needed.

    So in conclusion its totally out of the question for Japan to attack USA AND then fail… AND then attack the Soviets… this goes against every commen sence approach and was not their mindset. They could care less about the Germans, but felt that Russia was on her way out… so the fear of a Soviet attack was not seen. So in reality the Japanese feared a Soviet attack more than even considered any attack of her own EVEN after she decided to attack the USA.

    No coordination of Japan and Hitler occured… only a mutual treaty that assumed it any of the partners got in a ganeral war, that the other members would support the others… Thats why Hitler declared war on USA on dec 11th 1941. To honer his treaty to his partner… unlike Italy did with Germany in 1939.



  • I don’t want to have a strict requirement before the treaty is cancelled. If it is a strict requirement, then the opposing side can try and exploit this. For example, if the US keeps harassing the Caroline Islands or the Solomons but Japan has all other goals satisfied to attack Russia.

    What if we define it by victory cities.

    Like Japan needs all Asian and Pacific VCs minus Hawaii (including Hawaii isn’t realistic and too hard anyway)? That way, Japan wouldn’t need to guard all islands, just the VC ones.

    Russia needs all their red VCs and the Allies need to control all German VCs. (or maybe just all but 2?)



  • Is it realistic for US or UK fighters to land in Russian territory?


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The lend lease ruloes will take care of that… BTW the land lease money should be able to only purchase armor, artillery or planes So if the land lease is looking at 10 IPC the Soviets can build 2 tanks or a plane or a tank and artillery… that seems correct based on what the other member posed regarding the types of equipment sent.

    The allies cannot land any units in soviet territory however… Stalion would not allow even one pilot in Soviet territory. In april 1942 the Soviets rejected the USA request to land those “doolittle bombers” in Soviet territory. This is clearly an indication that the partnership with Soviet Union was very distant. Thats why they had to land in China which was further and they ran out of gas and crashed.



  • Forgetting our rules for a second, doesn’t it seems weird that in the OOB rules that the Allies are too powerful and that it’s unrealistic to have UK and US troops in red territories? Why isn’t a more common modification to the game (like RR etc…) to not allow any UK or US units in red territories? That’s a super easy fix to fix the balance better and is more realistic.



  • How about 6 categories of NAs? When all rules in 1 category are used the game balance remains the same. There are 6 so in addition to choosing them you can also randomize which NAs you want to use with the die. I NEED HELP COMING UP WITH SOME OF THE NAMES FOR CATEGORIES.

    1. National Units

    2. Foreign Assistance (?= CHANGE NAME?)
      a) Lend-Lease
      b) Italian Forces

    3. Non-Warring Nations (?)
      a) Russian/Japanese Non-Aggression Treaty (?)
      b) Neutral Aid

    4. Allied Relations (?)
      a) No Western Allied Units in Red Territories (?)
      b) Joint Strike (?) (Only declared once per game. Either Western Allied nation may declare it but it can only apply to all units in 1 battle for an Axis controlled territory. The Western Allied nation that declares it must have all units in that 1 battle wait until the next combat phase of the other Western Allied nation’s turn in order to participate in combat.)

    5. Harsh Winter
      a) Russian Winter= Before every Russian turn, Russian player rolls 1 die. If a 1 then Russian Winter is active. All ground units attacking any red territory attack at 1 less than they would otherwise. This applies even to attacking Russian units.
      b) Ideas for a balancer rule? Maybe arctic convoys automatically lose more IPCs (haven’t finalized this yet. Ideas?)

    6. Ideas?


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    1. Foreign Aid
      a) Lend-Lease
      b) Italian Forces

    2. Neutrals
      a) Russian/Japanese Non-Aggression Treaty
      b) Neutral Aid

    3. Alliances
      a) No Western Allied Units in Red Territories
      b) Joint Strike: Only declared once per game. Either Western Allied nation may declare it but it can only apply to all units in 1 battle for an Axis controlled territory. The Western Allied nation that declares it must have all units in that 1 battle wait until the next combat phase of the other Western Allied nation’s turn in order to participate in combat.

    4. Soviet Winter
      Russian player rolls 1 die. If a 1 then Soviet Winter is active. All Soviet ground units defending any red territory defend at +2 than they would otherwise .The roll is performed after the Germans have announced attacks.



  • @Imperious:

    The lend lease ruloes will take care of that… BTW the land lease money should be able to only purchase armor, artillery or planes So if the land lease is looking at 10 IPC the Soviets can build 2 tanks or a plane or a tank and artillery… that seems correct based on what the other member posed regarding the types of equipment sent.

    Wait not so fast. That was still under discussion I thought? I thought there was lots of general supplies to justify for building infantry with lend-lease IPCs.



  • So we’ll have to get back to Non-agression treaty later.
    @Imperious:

    1. Soviet Winter
      Russian player rolls 1 die. If a 1 then Soviet Winter is active. All Soviet ground units defending any red territory defend at +2 than they would otherwise .The roll is performed after the Germans have announced attacks.

    With rolling of dice added, we are not keeping it to once per game right?

    This is what I think you are modelling…windfall for Russia (rolling dice) and unforeseen difficulty for Germany (hence roll after Germany announced attacks not in Russia’s turn).

    But then how many times per game? When should this be declared?

    I am thinking limit it to the climate/geography relevant territories and actually let this happen EVERY turn. Radical but I am just thinking out loud.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well i was just cleaning up what Duke posted… I dont like the every turn roll either. In fact i want a proper turn order installed in order to be able to to a few things:

    1. declare presisely when a tech comes into effect ( historical based)
    2. demonstrate some historical timeframe so we know when we are in the war
    3. Install a draw or stalemate position …if the war is not decided by a turn then nobody wins.

    I would like to only have two such soviet winters 41 and 42, the problem is once its declared the germans wont make any attacks knowing they are gonna lose… so it kinda has to be declared after Germany allready has commited to attacks… can you find a solution? need your help!



  • I would like to only have two such soviet winters 41 and 42, the problem is once its declared the germans wont make any attacks knowing they are gonna lose… so it kinda has to be declared after Germany allready has commited to attacks… can you find a solution? need your help!

    In real life the Germans knew before they attacked in the harsh winter that they were at a worse position than if they waited to attack until the next year. They knew what time of year it was when they attacked but they decided the gains were worth the risk. This is why I think it’s OK to also have it in the game that the Germans know that they will be at a greater disadvantage before they attack.Â

    I don’t think it’s realistic to model Russian Winter with better defensive infantry. I think it’s more realistic to say attacking units can’t attack as well. That’s why I had it so the attack always attacks 1 less than without winter. Think about it, harsh winter doesn’t cause the defeders to fight better than they would in good weather (that’s rediculous IMHO), winter causes the attackers to fight much worse than they would otherwise.

    I don’t like rolling a die every turn either but I feel that winter needs to be randomized. Russia shouldn’t be able to choose what time of year it is to best suit there needs like in OOB rules. What if we said that just at the start of the game Russia rolls 1 die and the roll is the turn number that severe winter occurs? I’m fine with saying that it only occurs once between turn 1 and 6, but randomized. This way a die is only rolled once per game instead of once per turn. Much less rolling but it’s still randomized.



  • @Imperious:

    1. declare presisely when a tech comes into effect ( historical based)

    To refresh this is what I thought last: purchase dice before combat, roll dice after combat, comes into effect beginning of next turn

    @Imperious:

    1. demonstrate some historical timeframe so we know when we are in the war

    Althought we shouldn’t over do it. We setup up the “settings” of the story/game to much historical realism but after that anything goes for the “plot”.

    Like the Non-agression treaty. There should be different degrees of penalty rather than hard conditions on when one can break the treaty.



  • @theduke:

    Much less rolling but it’s still randomized.

    Even randomized is controversial.
    Random is not historic. Yet if its foreseen its not historic either.
    I can’t think of a solution at this point.



  • Yet if its foreseen its not historic either.

    I still don’t see why you guys think it can’t be foreseen. I know preparing for a battle takes a long time in advance, but still I’m sure these generals have a calender in front of them when they make the invasion plans.  😛 They know full well that they are attacking Russia too late in the year. They might not know until the few days leading up to the d-day exactly how harsh the weather is going to be but it’s not like the generals can’t step outside and look around before giving the signal to attack or not.  😉

    The best model for realism IMHO is that the German player knows beforehand that it’s going to be a harsh winter but doesn’t know the specific outcome of the battle (i.e. doesn’t know beforehand how the dice are going to roll). This is how it is in my proposed rule. Why can’t Germany know it’s a harsh winter until after the invasion plans (i.e. the combat move phase)?



  • From Wikipedia on Russian Winter: During WWII the only cold winter was in 1941-1942

    Since the game starts in early 1942, should we just not have Russian Winter as a NA? Should we just have it only effective on turn 1? I kind of like not having it at all, but if we only have effective for turn 1, then that would solve the problem of it being chosen or randomized… the answer is neither.



  • Maybe we could have 1 category called “Early 1942” (hopefully someone can come up with a catchier title). It applies to 2 balancing rules that apply for the 1st turn only. 1 is Russian Winter. The other is “The Second Happy Time” when German subs had their way with US shipping. Here is info from Wikipedia:

    The second happy time was a phase in the Second Battle of the Atlantic during which Axis submarines attacked merchant shipping to the east and south-east of the United States. It lasted from January 1942 to about August of that year. German submariners named it the happy time or the golden time as defence measures were weak and disorganised, and the U-boats were able to inflict massive damage with little risk. During the second happy time, Axis submarines sank 609 ships totaling 3.1 million tons for the loss of only 22 U-boats. This was roughly one quarter of all shipping sunk by U-boats during the entire Second World War, and constituted by far the most serious defeat ever suffered by the US Navy.

    I think we can come up with rules for each of the two aspects that will balance each other out. What do you think about the category, the category name, the idea of having Russian Winter automatically only apply to turn 1, importance of introducing a model for the 2nd Happy Time, and the rules for 2nd Happy Time?



  • Sounds about right.
    (Russian Winter fixed in time only, only randomness being the effect.)
    We could roll dice 1-3 for -1 attack, 4-6 for -2 attack…

    Should planes be affected?

    And we haven’t progressed further in terms of geographics of Russian Winter.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Good greif a million new posts!

    I still don’t see why you guys think it can’t be foreseen. I know preparing for a battle takes a long time in advance, but still I’m sure these generals have a calender in front of them when they make the invasion plans.  tongue They know full well that they are attacking Russia too late in the year. They might not know until the few days leading up to the d-day exactly how harsh the weather is going to be but it’s not like the generals can’t step outside and look around before giving the signal to attack or not.  wink

    The best model for realism IMHO is that the German player knows beforehand that it’s going to be a harsh winter but doesn’t know the specific outcome of the battle (i.e. doesn’t know beforehand how the dice are going to roll). This is how it is in my proposed rule. Why can’t Germany know it’s a harsh winter until after the invasion plans (i.e. the combat move phase)?

    OK the Germans planned Barbarossa for a quick campaign and had no idea how severe the Soviet winter could be, because they didn’t bother to open a history book on Napoleon who learned a great lesson. The winter assault on Moscow (operation Typhon) was totally unrealistic undertaking because the Germans underestimated both their chances in winter fighting and the tested experience the Soviet had in fighting in the snow. To draw an analogy look at football note how the Dolfins play in new england in early January.

    But in a real war the same experience in catastrophic to say the least!  In reality the Germans should get an attack penalty AND the Soviet should get a defense benefit. But in game terms it does not make much sense to say all German attacks -1, all Soviet defense +1… to simplify the math just have one side get a modifier say -2.

    Secondly, the Germans attempted a major attack in DEC 6th 1941 and failed… why then in the GAME are the Germans gonna learn the lesson of history before they even experience it firsthand?  So what you propose is to allow the Germans to get the following information: " You should choose not to attack, because we now tell you what happens in history so you don’t make any mistakes"

    The idea is to model what happened in history so each player can decide “once hes stuck with the problem how he can pull himself out” If we lay a phantom list of historical realities before the player where he easily sidetrack them and step around them … then we fail as game designers. Our job is to lay the experience upon the play so he can choose the course of action without forknowledge.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Should planes be affected?

    This is gonna depend on what list of air operations we install ( air missions) I dont think air missions should be effected or we would have to zone the map into different sections to represent or “model” weather conditions for each sector.

    The weather rules shouls only reflect the Soviet experiance of those winters 41 and 42 . Since the game starts in say april 1942 we only have to cover one such event. Best done as a surprise to the germans in some way.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 17
  • 49
  • 100
  • 4
  • 12
  • 24
  • 1
  • 14
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

82
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts