AARHE: National Units (Phase 1)



  • To get more organized with this project, I think we should expand the number of topics. I think we should keep the format the same as it is for this topic… AARHE: [Insert Sub-Topic Here] (Phase [Insert Number Here]). This topic is just for discussing how to choose the national units and what the advantages should be.

    How about we put in writing our line of reasoning for choosing a national unit so we are not all over the place. Once we agree on the method for choosing the unit, actually choosing the unit will just be looking up facts (easy).
    Here is my proposed logic for how we should pick the unit. Your opinions on this are needed.

    1. Only 1 unit per nation (for perceived balance).
    2. A different type of unit for each nation (for perceived differences among nations as well as for enjoyment for players).
    3. If a nation made 1 type of unit disproportionately more than either their economy would allow or more than other nations produced them, then that should be its national unit.
    4. If a nation made more than 1 type of unit disproportionately more, then choose the unit based on how much more and also to not contradict number 2 above.
    5. If a nation didn’t produce 1 type of unit disproportionately more (significantly more), then choose the unit based on a unique flare or fame (like kamikaze planes).

    Right now I think the leading contenders are:

    Russian T34’s: can buy 2 for 8 once per turn (we want to create incentive to buy tanks, make them cheap like t34’s were, but not have enough incentive for russia to buy only tanks)

    German VIIC U-Boats: we are still working on the advantage that best captures why so many of these built. as of know we have it that all german subs cost 6, but to be honest we just have cheapness as the advantage out of default.

    UK: still debating what the unit should be. UK made many DDs, but since they already build a lot of those in the game maybe we don’t need to make it a national unit. spitfire is a contender. I want to try to avoid having the same unit type as 2 different national units and kamikazes fit so well as the japanese unit IMO.

    Japan: since japan didn’t build a large number of any unit type, it’s hard to give them a unit based on mass production. that’s why i think we should go with the unit type for them based on uniqueness and fame… the kamikaze. we already have simple and balanced rules for the kamikaze.

    US: US built more of just about everything so we have a lot of choices. but the ratio of CVs built by US compared to all other nations is insanely huge. that’s why CV is leading contender for the national unit. essex class: rushed into production (cost -3) and fast (move 3 in non-combat). another leading contender is the liberty ship. this would be represented as a transport unit, but since transport units are mostly just involved in amphib assaults I think it might be weird also having those units representing liberty ships. thoughts?



  • Aircraft
    Military aircraft of all types
    United States = 324,750
    Germany = 189,307
    Soviet Union = 157,261
    United Kingdom = 131,549
    Japan = 76,320
    Canada = 16,431
    Italy = 11,122
    Other Commonwealth = 3,081
    Hungary = 1,046
    Romania = 1,000

    Fighter aircraft

    United States = 99,950
    Soviet Union = 63,087
    Germany = 55,727
    United Kingdom = 49,422
    Japan = 30,447
    Italy = 4,510

    Attack aircraft
    Soviet Union = 37,549
    Germany = 12,539

    Bomber aircraft

    United States = 97,810
    United Kingdom = 34,689
    Soviet Union = 21,116
    Germany = 18,235
    Japan = 15,117
    Italy = 2,063

    *****This info doesn’t support the idea that UK made a disproportionately high number of air units. IMO I don’t think the Spitfire should be the national unit. Also, I like Japanese kamikazes and I don’t want fighters as national units for more than 1 nation. I want diversification.



  • Cruisers
    United States = 48
    United Kingdom = 32
    Japan = 9
    Italy = 6
    Soviet Union = 2

    Destroyers
    United States = 349
    United Kingdom = 240
    Japan = 63
    Soviet Union = 25
    Germany = 17
    Italy = 6

    *****Look at how many DDs the UK built! This is the only reason why I thought DD’s should be the UK national unit. Also, the ‘Destroyers for Bases’ program earlier in the war might also justify the UK having a ton of destroyers, don’t you think?


  • Moderator

    If you make DD’s a national unit for Britain I would make Fighters the National unit for Japan…

    British H Class Destroyer:
    Cost 10 IPC’s for each Destroyer Purchased

    Japanese Kawasaki Fighters:
    the 1 Fighter Purchased on Purchase Units Phase costs 10 IPC’s



  • Post-World War I and World War II classes (of Destroyers)

    A class — 11 ships, 1929–1930
    B class — 9 ships, 1930
    C and D class — 14 ships, 1931–1932
    E and F class — 18 ships, 1934
    G and H class — 24 ships, 1935–1936
    I class — 11 ships, 1936–1937
    Tribal class (1936) — 27 ships, 1936–1944
    J and K class — 16 ships, 1938–1939
    Hunt class — 83 ships (20 Batch I, 33 Batch II, 28 Batch III, 2 Batch IV), 1939–1942
    L and M class — 16 ships, 1939–1942
    N class — 8 ships, 1940–1941
    O and P class — 16 ships, 1941–1942
    Q and R class — 16 ships, 1941–1942
    S and T class — 16 ships, 1942–1943
    U and V class — 16 ships, 1942–1943
    W and Z class — 16 ships, 1943–1944
    C class — 32 ships, 1943–1945
    Battle class — 23 ships (16 Batch I, 7 Batch II), 1943–1946

    ********Class H were WWI class ships. I believe the last one was built in 1939, several years before the game is set.
    The most prevelent class of WWII destroyers were of Hunt Class:

    The Hunt class was a class of destroyer escorts of the Royal Navy. They are named after British fox hunts. They served as convoy escorts in World War II.

    The Hunt class were supposed to be quickly and cheaply built escort destroyers. The Type 1s were under armed; four 4" dual-purpose guns (capable of ship to ship and AA fire) in twin turrets. This was due to a major design error caused by rushed calculations in an overworked design department, leading to instability. One turret had to be removed and ballast added. The next batch of ships had their hulls split lengthways and widened while building to give 33 Type 2s with six 4" guns in 3 turrets. The subsequent 28 Type 3s carried four 4" guns but had two torpedo tubes amidships. The Type 4s were built to a larger different design by J I Thornycroft.

    Except for the Type 1s, Hunt class destroyers served with the Royal Navy, Polish Navy, Royal Hellenic Navy (Greece) and Royal Norwegian Navy.

    ************ Notice the first line “quickly and cheaply built escort destroyers”…. justification for making them cost 10? The last ones came in 1942, however.


  • Moderator

    alrighty, make them the hunt class… My main point is making Japanese Fighters 10…



  • continuing discussing from main thread on this new thread

    @Micoom:

    JAP; 8 IPC figthers and battleships attack and defend on a 5

    The battleship is already in the Yamato Japanese National Advantage.

    US; Extra ccapacityon Liberty ships: Always 2 infantry + 1 other land unit. and CA for 13 each (still 2 hits)

    Which carrier is that? The light fleet carrier or the light crusier hull carrier?  :lol:
    I don’t think its too bad unbalanced to be 13 IPC and take 1 hit only. I mean we gave their Liberty transport an advantage.
    We still let US build normal carriers.



  • liberty ships are very cheap cargo vessels. if they can be justifiably represented by transport units then it makes sense to have US transports be cheap. liberty ships shouldn’t be involved in amphib assaults (realistically), which is the main purpose of transport units, so I said that liberty ships shouldn’t be represented by transport units.

    convoys aren’t represented by transport units (we already had discussion why) so therefore I say liberty ships shouldn’t be represented by those units either. That is my stance, but I do like the discussion over it because I want to be able to justify liberty ships as transport units, I just can’t.



  • @tekkyy:

    continuing discussing from main thread on this new thread

    @Micoom:

    JAP; 8 IPC figthers and battleships attack and defend on a 5

    The battleship is already in the Yamato Japanese National Advantage.

    I know, but I wanted to skip the NA… But I like your kamikazes also.

    UK Could have the DD or BB, no fighters indeed.


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

    I dont know where to jump in after like 15 posts in one day… but i can say this:

    the United States built 2,710 EC2 liberty ships and about 500 C2 and C3 cargo ships… this is staggering quantity… The reason why i feel the US should have these units as the “kicker” is due to 2 things:

    1. Germany has cheap subs and if USA has cheap Trannies it will balance out the battle of the atlantic better.
    2. If USA gets a cheaper tranny over a cheaper destroyer it wont help them as much.

    if anything let UK get cheaper battleships since they had the most modern battleships… the figure is 12 vs 17 but most of the american BB’s were not retrofitted or modernized.
    A second choice for UK would be spitfires.

    it may be noted that usa started the war with 171 destroyers and Japan had 113 destroyers. United States also sold 50 destroyers to UK in exchange for base rights. this was early 1941.



  • @Micoom:

    I know, but I wanted to skip the NA…

    Oh I see. Why is that?
    So far National Units is about cost modifiers to model historic purchase trends.

    @Imperious:

    if anything let UK get cheaper battleships since they had the most modern battleships

    Which one is that? http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm sugguests US’s Iowa with the best weaponary and protection. Should it be cheaper because of “modern”? I thought its about mass production or efficiency.

    United States also sold 50 destroyers to UK in exchange for base rights. this was early 1941.

    Thats another point for UK cheap DD.



  • Losses and builds during WWII;

    DD
              Losses      Builds
    GER    50            17
    IT        84            6
    JAP    134          63
    UK      110          240
    US      71            349
    RUS    27            25

    AC
              Losses      Builds
    GER    0              2
    IT        0            0
    JAP    19            16
    UK      8              14
    US      11            141
    RUS    0              0

    BB
            Losses      Builds
    GER    7              2
    IT        1            3
    JAP    8              2
    UK      5              5
    US      2              8
    RUS    1              0

    Sub
            Losses      Builds
    GER    751          1337
    IT      84            28
    JAP    130          167
    UK      77            167
    US      53            422
    RUS    90            52



  • Here is an idea I have on the drawing board…

    1 national unit each… no fighters as national units though. instead, a separate category for national fighter advantages. each nation has a different advantage.

    National Unit NA:
    Russia=armor units
    Germany=subs
    UK=bombers? DDs? BBs? (still debating this one)
    Japan=infantry (advantage something like dug-in defenders and/or banzai inf)
    US= CVs (maybe transports if we can justify liberty ships as transport units)

    National Fighters NA:
    Russia= cheap fighters?
    germany= strategic dive bombers
    UK= spitfire, defend at 5
    Japan= kamikaze rules I explained before
    US= P-51, greater movement… what about conflict with LRA as tech?



  • What if instead of each nation having a fighter advantage we do this (these might be too similar however):

    National unit:
    Russia= tank (cheaper)
    germany= sub (cheaper?)
    UK= fighter (defend better and maybe cheaper)
    japan= infantry (defend better and maybe cheaper)
    us= CV (cheaper and move 3)

    National Special Attack:
    Russia=  Katyusha rocket launchers
    germany= blitzkrieg
    UK= enigma decoder
    japan= just kamikazes? maybe include kaitens and banzai inf as suicidal warfare? suicidal inf too similar to Russian advantage of sacrificing men?
    US= Amphibious Assault (marines)

    what are some unique tactics that Russia and US used during the war?



  • what did japan mass produce during the war?



  • @theduke:

    what did japan mass produce during the war?

    Compared to the other powers they didn’t really mass produce… But they came in 4rd in machine guns.  and 2nd in Reconnaissance aircraft and AC’s and 3rd in Submarines.

    So looking at the Machine Guns the Infantry option isn’t that bad!


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

    National unit: ( these are just as you stated )
    Russia= tank (cheaper)
    germany= sub (cheaper?)
    UK= fighter (defend better and maybe cheaper)
    japan= infantry (defend better and maybe cheaper)
    us= CV (cheaper and move 3)

    This all looks good.

    National Special Attack:
    Russia=  Katyusha rocket launchers (+1 first strike on artillery)
    germany= blitzkrieg (each armor brings up one infantry +1 on attack, each plane brings up one armor on attack +1)
    UK= enigma decoder
    japan= banzai attack is a must +1 attack but must attack to the bitter end… no retreats
    US= Amphibious Assault (marines) +1 first round on invasions

    what are some unique tactics that Russia and US used during the war?

    Russia:
    They copied german tactics… they learn well from their masters but relied on numbers to grind down the opponent… quality was not the issue it was quantity. Also excellent fighters in poor weather and built up areas… turned quick battles into a quagmire of attrition

    USA:
    Installed great bomber campaign over germany…excellent logistics and supply system second to none. Used German tactics on land combat. marines looks promising



  • we can’t include banzai inf and not include kamikazes. kamikaze national special attack comes first IMO.


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

    A kamakazi is a desperate attack… its not something the japanese should be doing unless they are going to lose. I know its fun… but historically they didnt throw away their lives with frivolous attacks w/o purpose. The style of combat has to be respectible… Banzai is derivitive of the concept of Bushido… its also somewhat a desperate attack but symbolizes the fighting spirit of the japanese warrior. I think kami should stick as a NA and not a specific type of combat method… it looks bad for japanese people in general because of its desperate character.



  • Kamikaze is quite major in numbers but Imperious Leader has a point that they wouldn’t use it until they were losing the war.
    But dug-in defenders also makes a defensive NA so its hard to say.

    The new “no retreat” idea for Banzai attack sounds good to me.

    But what happens to infantry powerful for Russia and Germany? I reckon more like this…

    Russia= tank (cheaper) = T34 , d6 dice number of 2 IPC infantries
    germany= sub (cheaper) = VII , d6 dice number of 2 IPC infantries
    UK= fighter (defend better) = Spitfire
    japan = fighter (cheaper) = Zero
    us= CV (move 3) = Essex

    So we let US have fast but just as strong carriers. But lets not make them cheaper as well??? If it was Essex Light Fleet Carrier but as least they need to build MORE of them to carry the same amount of fighter in the fleet.



  • Banzai is derivative of the concept of Bushido… its also somewhat a desperate attack but symbolizes the fighting spirit of the Japanese warrior.

    And kamikaze attacks aren’t a symbol of the fighting spirit of the Japanese warrior???

    A kamikaze is a desperate attack… its not something the Japanese should be doing unless they are going to lose.
    True for both.

    I know its fun… but historically they didn’t throw away their lives with frivolous attacks w/o purpose.
    True for both.

    Wikipedpia On Banzai Charge:

    Banzai charge is a term derived from the Japanese samurai spirit and ideology of not accepting the shame of defeat. Instead, it is considered honourable to do a last desperate charge at the enemy and perish together with them instead of dying in cowardice.

    Banzai is literally translated as “Ten thousand years” but more accurately “Long Live” and was a Japanese motto during the war. They honour their emperor by shouting “Banzai”, meaning “Long live the emperor”.

    The Kamikaze strategy used in World War II is a good exemplification of the banzai charge, although the banzai charge is used mainly for infantry troopers.

    Banzai infantry, kamikaze fighters, kaiten subs are all forms of suicide attacks, but utilizing different units to do so. Kamikaze attacks were the most effective, and therefore famous form of the attack during WWII. The only question in my mind is whether to have just kamikaze attacks as the advantage or all forms of suicide attacks.


  • Moderator

    Banzai Charges actually made it sometimes… Kamikazi’s never did… plus you have to find a “extremely” justifiable reason to “waste” a 12 IPC unit…



  • Banzai Charges actually made it sometimes… Kamikazi’s never did…

    Really? I didn’t know that.  :?

    Here is some of the info I found on Wikipedia:

    Although kamikaze attacks could not stop the Allied advance the Pacific, they inflicted more casualties and delayed the fall of Japan for longer than might have been the case using only the conventional methods available to the Japanese Empire.

    In the modern era, human-wave attacks are often, but not always associated with mass armies of untrained soldiers. When Nazi Germany attacked Soviet Union, the Soviets used the tactic against both advancing and entrenched enemy soldiers. Usually the Red Army soldiers were told to charge directly in a wide berth to strike every possible point in the German lines. In some battles the Soviets defeated the Germans after sustaining battle losses much higher than the German losses. The tactic had also been used by Soviets during the Winter War against Finland and before during the Polish-Soviet War and Russian Civil War. The effectiveness of the tactic during Winter War poor, and after it and during the war agaisnt Germany, Soviet leadership realised that human wave combined with no retreat policy is not most effective.



  • National Units:

    Russia= Once per turn Russia may purchase 2 armor units and place them in Moscow for a total of 8 IPCs.

    Germany= For every IC where no surface naval units are built in a given turn, 1 sub may be built there for 6 IPCs.
    (From Wikipedia: Having no hope of defeating the vastly superior Royal Navy decisively in a surface battle, the German High Command immediately stopped all construction on capital surface ships save the nearly completed Bismarck class battleships and two cruisers and switched the resources to submarines, which could be built more quickly. Though it took most of 1940 to expand the production facilities and get the mass production started, more than a thousand submarines were built by the end of the war.)

    UK= All fighters purchased and placed in London cost 8 IPCs. All UK fighters get +1 defense in London.

    Japan= Once per turn Japan may purchase 3 infantry units and place them in Tokyo for a total of 7 IPCs. For every combat where Japan is defending a yellow territory with at least 1 infantry, 1 (and only 1) infantry defend at a 3.
    (This is to represent all of the following: Japanese Warrior Code, Banzai attacks (ironically used on defense), dug-in defenders and Japanese jungle warfare.)

    US= All US aircraft carriers cost 14 and move 3 in the non-combat move phase.
    (Essex carriers were rushed into production and they were fast.)

    This is pretty balanced…
    Russian, UK, US advantages worth about 1.5+2.5+1.5 (per turn, respectively) = 5.5
    German and Japanese advantages worth about 3+2.5 = 5.5



  • Was planning to playtest these ideas before posting them, but maybe you have some impressions right away. This is strictly historical stuff, so Japanese have much less than Germany but this is due to the historical facts of Japanese types being inferior to American. Kamikazes and the like rules could be added to give the Japs a boost.

    Note that air combat values is for one round air-air combat in both SBR and ordinary combat, normally fighters hit on a 2 and bombers on a 1. Night bombing in SBR reduces these values by 1 and also 1 less IPC damage. Subs attack convoy zones, causing one die of IPC damage. My house rules also uses the following base costs: 
    Battleships: 20 IPCs. Destroyers: 10 IPCs. Submarines: 7 IPCs.
    Bombers: 12 IPCs. Fighters: 8 IPCs. ICs: 12 IPCs.

    /Lynxes

    Tech rules:
    *The original rules for technologies are replaced by the following rules.
    *To play with these rules, you need the units from an earlier Axis&Allies edition. Each side has 7 high-tech units that are built as separate units of the same kind, below are listed the values that differ from the original values, the unit sculpt used to represent the unit and the turn that the unit first may be built. The type of unit not listed below is represented by units from the other edition (i.e. ordinary Soviet tanks are represented by earlier A&A ed. tanks). Each side starts with 3 high-tech units, choose standard units of the unit type to be replaced at start, starting with Allied side. If bidding for sides, extra high-tech unit replacements may be bought for 2 IPCs each. Note that only units available turn 1 may be chosen in this way. For internet play, use control markers next to high-tech units (except: Me-262s and Type XXIs).

    Soviet Union:
    T-34 tank: cost 6 IPCs, combat 4/4, rev. ed., turn 1.
    Sturmovik fighter: cost 7 IPCs, if enemy has tanks: attacks on a ‘4’, functions as a bomber in air combat (fires on a ‘1’, no air combat when defending, no CAP, no escort to SBR), rev. ed., turn 1.

    Germany:
    Ju87 Stuka fighter: attacks on a ‘5’ first round of land combat, functions as a bomber in air combat (fires on a ‘1’, no air combat when defending, no CAP, no escort to SBR), rev.ed., turn 1.
    Ju88 bomber: may function as a fighter when escorting or intercepting Night bombing SBR missions and then fire on a ‘2’, subtract one from IPC damage caused, rev.ed., turn 1.
    Panther tank: cost 7 IPCs, combat 4/5, rev.ed., turn 3.
    Me262 jet fighter: cost 10 IPCs, defence: ‘5’, fires on a ‘3’ in air combat (on a ‘2’ at Night), mark w. control marker under earlier edition fighter (internet: use “destroyer” sculpt), turn 5.
    Type XXI submarine: cost 9 IPCs, attack: ‘3’, add one to IPC damage caused, cancels the first enemy hit to a sub-only force, mark w. control marker under sub (internet: use “bomber” sculpt), turn 5.

    UK:
    Lancaster bomber: cost 14 IPCs, attack: ‘5’, add one to IPC damage caused, rev.ed., turn 1.
    Mosquito fighter: cost 10 IPCs, range 6, fires on a ‘2’ when escorting or intercepting Night bombing SBR missions, may not land on carriers, early ed., turn 2.

    Japan:
    Zero fighter: cost 10 IPCs, sea zones: ‘3’ in air combat and attacks on a ‘4’ first round, rev.ed., turn 1.
    Yamato battleship: cost 22 IPCs, combat 5/5, fires first fire if enemy has no air units, rev.ed., turn 1.

    USA:
    Lightning fighter: cost 10 IPCs, range 6, sea zones: ‘3’ in air combat, may not land on carriers, rev.ed., turn 1.
    Flying fortress bomber: cost 15 IPCs, fires on a ‘2’ in air combat (can’t hit at night), rev.ed., turn 2.
    Escort carrier: cost 10 IPCs, defence: ‘2’, carries one fighter, negates sub special abilities like destroyer if carrying a fighter, early edition, turn 3.


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

  • 1
  • 1
  • 17
  • 12
  • 191
  • 6
  • 5
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

53
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts