Naval Range like airforce?

@Ichabod:

This thread reminds me of how I’d play Axis and Allies Global 1940 if I were filthy rich.

Intelligence as a part of the game turn order would be incorporated into the game in military terms as far as gathering information for enemy strength/location ect.

If I was rich…I’d pay people to referee an Axis and Allies Global 1940 game.

There’d be 3 different boards set up in 3 different rooms all for the same game.

1 board would be the Axis Room

1 board would be the Allies Room

1 board in the middle (Axis and Allies side players could not see) would be for the Administrators of the game room only.

Axis and Allies sides could only see numbers/units of enemy units on their border initially whether adjacent by land or sea. From then on, there would be a " Reconnaissance" or Spy turn in the game turn order. Only the Administrators’ room would have the complete setup of the board.

House Rule would be:

1. Repair damaged facilities
2. Purchase units
3. Reconnaissance Step: Players could utilize submarines or S. Bombers for a recon mission. Each Sub or bomber, within it’s range of movement, could pass through or move to (if a sub wants to stay) to spy on one specific land territory or sea zone for a cost of 1 IPC per unit used in that part of the turn order. Players would have to smartly “save” IPCs for the RECON part of the turn order. Each side would be informed which territory was spied on. In the case of being spied on by subs, players would have to hunt the sub with a destroyer. Subs or S. Bombers used for RECON could not be moved in the Combat movement phase.

Whatever intel is discovered during the RECON phase, the corresponding units would be placed on the board of the side who just completed a RECON mission. On the opposing sides’ turn, if the “discovered” units were moved to a new location (not adjacent to an enemy controlled territory), than that intel would be lost and the administrators would come and remove the pieces from the corresponding sides’ board. A German sub out in the Atlantic could slip away to RECON the W. US…

Axis and Allies players COULD still place a specific color (I’ll call it purple units) on their board for their estimation of what and where they think the enemy units may have went to.

In this game, each side would have to do their own S2 (Intelligence) estimate for where the enemy was concentrating. Japan for instance may send subs or bombers close to the Western US to see what warships were being built in dry dock. Germany would have to RECON Leningrad (so they don’t blunder into a Russian counter attack) or SZ91 in case a landing is coming.

Good news, you don’t need to be filthy rich. Once I finish all the general’s booklets, I am going to print them and they are folded. Next, you place your general token on the map and, keeping the general passport upright, you put the units he commands behind it. So your opponent will only see the general piece and not the army. Haven’t thought about recon but, one D6 before combat phase and the opponent has to reveal that number of units in an accurate ratio of his forces.

Neat idea you gave me :p

Naval mines can hit transports. You call out mines on ships one by one. (to distinguish transport w/2 INF vs transport with INF+Tank)

So yea, amphibious invasions are risky, but if you have naval superiority why march through France as the US when you can land and Greece and be super annoying.

I like it. Simple and effective.

No, it’s less complex than you think.
All you have to do is to move the cargo on the convoy route and protect it if there’s a sub near by. The rules of transport and cargo are almost the same.

In most AA game, UK and Japan are too stronger.
During WWII, Germany tried to cut the UK supply.
US make the same thing at the beginning of 1943 against Japan.
If UK or Japan player build a thousand of tank,plane and other materiels each turn even if they lost their fleet and the control of the ocean. That doesn’t make any sense!

For the warship cost.
Each country has their own cost.
ex: Uboat = 5, USA,UK sub = 8, Italy 9 etc…

This is my second solution to the naval problems in P40.

(8) Destroyers-In the real world where are escort unit. They become 1-2, but for each Battleship, Carrier or Transport casues 1 destoryer to attack on 2.

(11) Crusiers-In the real war these where used to add punch to a fleet, where a battleship could not be givin. It it is not with a capital ship, it takes 2 hits. Cannot shore bombard after taking 1 hit, untill reparied.
They may also can be held back form a naval battle to shore bombard.

(18)-Same but can be held back from battles to shore bombard.

Ok Here it goes
@Black_Elk:

On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?

They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.

Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…

Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.

Any thoughts?

I totally agree with this because there should be a reason to fight in the pacific (for both sides) I think if making each island 1 and isladns that get taken often 2 then there would be a reason for japan to defend them and usa to attack them.
Anyways many of the game is historical but some things had to change for unblanced reasons so that way the axis have a chance that gives them a shot.  Though i beleive that the numbers in the game are very accurate to how the real war went except the german army had more tanks and the russian army had more infantry.  The part of how U.S.A. and Great Britian, are both pretty weak is because it is the truth great britian was on its knees and the u.s.a army was not even a real army (no offence it was not made for offensive just defensive)

@Yoshi:

But isn’t this choice only for the jet fighters hits ?

no, jet ftrs can intercept Rockets AND bombers…. unless the bombers are shielded via more escorts than jet ftrs.

@Yoshi:

Otherwise, if the defense player has 1 jet fighter and 1 AAGun (say attacker does not have Long Range Air Craft tech, but he got Rockets tech), then the bomber would be more protected that if the defense wouldn’t have jet power (2 hits@1 needed to kill the bomber).

More protected with less defending jet power?  I don’t think so. 
Jets can intercept both rockets AND SBRs.

Your example negated the bomber interception since you had escorts (LRA).
By allowing the attacker to choose the casualties, the attacker is rewarded for having rockets AND LRA.

@Yoshi:

Thank you for the answers. I know that this is a very special case, but I encountered this point (of the beginning of the thread) in a friend game.

You are welcome.  And it’s not a problem, I will support Enhanced when ever I can.

I was also thinking maybe transports could carrymoney to other nations.