You know… that strategic redeployment thing briefly looked at with some sorta point system on much shifting of troops you can do.
I guess it was bit weird and too similar to non-combat movement, but I think it was allow them to move even if they gone into combat that turn…
Or maybe all troop movement should use oil. You can get into a situation where you have lots of IPC and lots of forces but can’t move your troops lol.
Sounds like that possible rule of strategic redeployment needs to to be finalized a little more. I don’t see yet how it won’t be extremely complicated.
I’ve been thinking about changing lend-lease.
US may move into any territory controlled by either UK or Russia in the non-combat move phase and instantly have those units converted to the equivalent units of the respective Ally. No more than a total of 10 IPCs worth of units per turn may be converted from US to either Russia or UK units.
I think this will make the game a lot simpler. Commerce raiding lend-lease is now through sinking military transport units. Commerce raiding nations due to their teritories not being contiguously connected to their capital is still done by subtracting IPCs. This allows now there to be only 1 set of rules for subtracting IPCs due to commerce raiding. Opinions?
My opinion is, of course, negative.
But just because I like my global dynamic model :wink:
Unlike static convoy SZs, the player decides which blockade (if any) it’ll try to run through.
The wording of the rule is simple.
This is in the income thread.@theduke:
US may move into any territory controlled by either UK or Russia in the non-combat move phase and instantly have those units converted to the equivalent units of the respective Ally.
I think it was supplies sent to USSR hence we want it to be IPC.
For UK you are quite right. UK bought much actual war machines from US and your method is realistic.
The thing is that it would be difficult to intercept Lend-lease with your method but I guess thats normal as UK let US enter their territory.
US sent many aircraft to Russia.
Didn’t we already discuss how your blockade idea would make it really hard to set up a complete blockade of, say, UK? That’s a lot of SZs to spread out over.
I’m starting to reconsider. I think air unit oil advantage should be -3 (so it’s better than the -2 for armor). This would then make it less appealing to the Germans to use the armror advantage over the air unit advantage. I want to make it so Russia still buys the 2 armor (they should even if air unit advantage is increased to -3), and have Germany either use the naval or air unit advantage while only occasionally using the armor advantage. Obviously, since the other 3 nations will need transports to use the armor, they will almost always be using the air or naval unit advantage.
So, I think -2 for 2 armor or -3 for any air or naval unit purchase would give much more historical purchasing.
In the OOB rules there were a couple of factors that were unrealistic, but they kind of cancelled each other out so the net effect was sort of realistic.
nations hardly ever purchased fighters (unrealistic) and
fighters were hardly ever taken as casualties (unrealistic).
However, these 2 unrealistic effects balanced each other out so the board almost always had fighters present (although typically the number of fighters would just gradually reduce in number).
Now if we change the purchasing rules so nations build fighters (realistic) and if we still have it so fighters are hardly taken as casualties, then we will end up with a lot of fighters towards the end of the game. This meas that we need to change combat so that a few fighters are lost on every turn (on average).
This is what I’m proposing:
Fighters always match up against enemy fighters so that there is an even number of fighters on both sides (these fighters participate in the dogfight). One side will then end up with an excess of fighters whenever one side brings more fighters to the battle than the other side. Any excess fighters fight along side the non-fighter units exactly as they do in the OOB rules (they don’t participate in the dogfight). Excess fighters remain fighting along side other units even as fighters are shot down (they never fill in for the dogfight). When fighters remove all the opposing dogfighting planes, then they fight along side the other units just like the OOB rules.
Anticipated questions:
Why do we need to make sure dogfights are 1-to-1?
Fighters will generally be spread out over several territories. Defending fighters must already be in the territory being attacked so fighters from the other territories can’t come and help. It would be too confusing if they did.This means that the attacker can “put all his eggs in 1 basket” by using all his fighters in 1 key battle of his choice and have overwhelming air power to unrealistically easily destroy all fighters in that territory. Even though it’s possible for the defender to guard against this by placing all his fighters in 1 territory, like his capital, this would be very unrealistic and weaken all other territories unrealistically. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that if it’s not limited to 1-to1 then you get unrealistic effects.
Why don’t fighter’s fill-in for fighters that go down in the dogfight?
This would still give the attacker an advantage because the attacker would still consolidate all his fighters in 1 territory. The advantage of extra fill-in fighters is a big advantage during the long battles.
Basically, this is the simplest change that results in more fighter casualties.
Why do we need to make sure dogfights are 1-to-1?
Yeah I also think we should.
Once an enemy fighter opens fire on your fighter, you have to evade and fire back whether you are on a bombing or dogfighting mission. You can’t carry on your mission and be a sitting duck and essentially suicide.
Why don’t fighter’s fill-in for fighters that go down in the dogfight?
I don’t know about that. I don’t think you have to worry about attacker advantage. In phase 3 combat we were considering modelling the great power of fighters but the lack of endurance. Fighters needs to land to refuel and rearm maybe every 3 rounds. Fighter only have so many bombs…like 2 to 4. Defender has advantage due to home airfields.
I don’t know if players will want to keep track of the number of rounds of combat. I don’t think keeping track of whether there has been 3 or 4 rounds of combat for every battle is worth the added realism.
The following are interesting rules from the Nova version of Axis and Allies (found at http://www.kw.igs.net/~tacit/aanda/origins.htm#Original)
What follows next is a very short summary of the article mentioned above. Lee sent me a copy from the magazine, a copy of one page from the original rule book and a photocopy of the part of the map that had the ‘technology’ legend.
First the Map and the Technology. Originally the map is a bit more strategic than the 2nd edition MB version. I only see a part of the Indian Ocean but there are at least five differences here. The Red Sea and Arabian seas are distinct. The French Indochina-Burma territory is split with Siam worth 100 (= 1 IPC). The Sea Zone beside Siam does not touch Burma and India has its own Sea Zone too. Madagascar has no worth. One big Sea Zone in the middle of the Indian Ocean instead of the two surrounding the compass (MB version). Also Italian East Africa (1 IPC) was separate from British East Africa (separate from yet another new province -Tanzania maybe).
The Technology:
1 Jet Power - Ftrs defend 1 thru 5.
2 Rockets - One free Strategic Bombing attack per turn on one enemy Ind.Complex up to 2 provinces away from friendly AA.
3 Super Sub - Defends 1-3
4 Long Range - Add 2 to all aircraft range
5 Fifth Column - Many enter any one neutral per turn at no cost
6 Atomic Bomb - One Strategic Bombing attack per turn destroys everything in enemy province.
(A bit different there ! 5th Column does little for me personally but the ABomb - ouch)
From the rule book.
14.1.3 Jets are not effected by enemy AAguns!
This is from the rule book and deals with Special Forces something left out of the game when moved to MB. (I will omit extra characters and summarize to save space :)
14.2 Special Forces - Each player is given one type of special forces to simulate his branch of the military that was most highly developed, or exhibited unusual characteristics.
14.2.1 Movement of Industry - Soviet player may move one of his Ind.Complex units each turn at a rate of 1 movement point. (nothing on moving and production simultaneously)
14.2.2 The Panzerkorps - German player may designate one of his armour as SS Panzerkorps during each of his player-turns. May designate any Armour as SS at beginning of the turn. Attacks at 1-4 and defends at 1-5.
14.2.3 Home Guard - UK player Infantry on the United Kingdom territory defend at 1-3.
14.2.4 Kamikaze - Japan player may move one Ftr per turn its full movement allowance and attacks at 1-4. Whether it survived the attack or not it is eliminated.
14.2.5 Marines - US player can designate all Infantry units (beginning of the turn) in one amphibious assault as Marines. Attack at 1-2.
Lee asked me to post this if I posted the above rules.
Rules by Larry Harris and Joe Angiolillo. Provided by Lee Enderlin and the Wednesday Night Fights Wargame Club of Connecticut.
Looks like great minds think alike… the original A&A game had 1 national unit per nation too (they called them special forces). Funny, they called an IC a special unit :lol: I think giving UK infantry as the special unit is probably just cause they didn’t want to give them fighters cause they thought fighters were better for Japan and didn’t want the same unit type for 2 different nations (just my guess).
I don’t know if players will want to keep track of the number of rounds of combat. I don’t think keeping track of whether there has been 3 or 4 rounds of combat for every battle is worth the added realism.
A little moving counter on the battle board would hurt.
It depends on how much you like detailing planes.
In right direction we’ve already separated air combat and land combat .
In the PC game BF1942 fighters get 15 bombs lol.
Some players don’t mind. Some players think its absolutely ridiculous!
Spitfire carried 1 big or 2 small bombs. BF-109 carried 1 big or 4 small bombs.
It makes no sense for 1 attacking fighter to attack round after round killing 5 tank piece.
I think giving UK infantry as the special unit is probably just cause they didn’t want to give them fighters cause they thought fighters were better for Japan and didn’t want the same unit type for 2 different nations (just my guess).
Yeah it is otherwise a doubtful choice. Germany didn’t do land invasion of UK so its hypothetical to say UK infantry fight better should it happen.
I think to finish phase one … we still need some rules for neutral armies? any ideas?
How about enemy with nearest capital to neutral gets to defend it with 3 inf and gets to sum the roll of 2 dice to determine the number of IPCs that can be spent on non-inf units. Only neutrals on the board are swiss, sweds, spain, turkey, Venezuela, Argentina. I think this will give a realistic distribution of units per neutral while still leaving enough up to chance.
Neutrals:
You cannot enter the territories or airspace of any neutral nation unless you first declare war upon them. each minor neutral has its own historical forces and in some cases either the allies or axis have a certain affiliation with them allowing their “conversion” as part of this alliance.
the following list of neutrals and their military forces:
Spain: 5 Infantry, 1 armor, 2 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 destroyer, 1 IC
Turkey: 4 Infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 IC
Sweden: 3 Infantry, 1 artillery, 1 armor ( 3 IP value)
Venezuela: 2 Infantry ( 2 IP value)
Mongolia: 2 infantry ( 1 IP value)
Rio De Oro: part of spain ( no value)
Angola: 1 infantry ( 1 ip value)
Peru: 2 infantry (1 IP value)
Argentina: 3 infantry, 1 destroyer ( 3 IP value)
switzerland: 2 infantry ( no ip value)
Spain: new value= 6 IP
If the axis conquer gibrater, suez and control all territories that “circle” the medditeraen sea ( except turkey) and control the caucasus territory for one complete turn then the axis get to roll one d6 1-3= conversion to a full minor axis ally. 4-6 continued neutral status. One roll is granted every turn the axis meet these conditions.
Turkey: new value= 5 IP
If the axis do all the following plus conquer persia, then they get the same roll.
In both cases Germany uses their IP value and builds only units from these territories.
Argentina: If the axis attack south america and occupy any territory in the americas, they roll a d6 1-3 Argentina goes axis 4-6 stays neutral.
Sweden and Switzerland these nations stay neutral and are basically limited axis trading partners. If the axis decide to invade them, they only get their income ( swiss have none).
If Turkey does not become an axis ally she will enter the war against the axis immediatly when the Soviets occupy all formerly german occupied Soviet territory.
all other neutrals can be converted by either side as follows:
the axis or allies can make one attempt per turn to convert any one neutral nation on their side. Roll one d6 if you roll equal to or less than their IPC value they become allies, and their forces are converted into pieces from the nation that converted them. The IPC value is added to that nations total. If you roll higher no effect try again.
Yeah the neturals rule would make it historic.
Don’t have the background the diplomatic relations of WWII so you guys talk it out.
Do you or theduke have programming background to roll out a software for playtesting Phase 1?
I like the Most of the “neutral” rules, however wasn’t it decided that “neutrals” are part of Phase 2?? We have a separate topic for it…
I am not sure if its phase two or one… but welcome Micoom as a member of our team … if that courtesy hasn’t been sent allready by another member.
The neutrals are based on history…except its real close on giving the turks a destroyer…
other than that i would further propose that as i have read the minutes of the meetings and letters between Hitler and Franco about the latter joining the axis… it was also Francos wish to obtain former French colonies of western africa and direct aid from germany i the duration of the pact… This left Hitler with a sour spirits and he never again approached Franco for a direct alliance feeling the cost was too high.
So to be even more accurate germany has to give 2 IP in aid to spain and release its claim to west africa which is now part of spain.
So lets list out date and countries that switched sides or declared war on each other and so on…and why so.
