Operational Realism House Rules

I’m working on a comprehensive rebuild of the game to be more realistic in terms of planning and executing large scale operations. I think A&A does well to ignore a lot of minutiae–the differences in capability between infantry and marines is not significant, for instance, and paratroopers are not relevant on the scale the game is played. But, the game doesn’t really simulate operational art. Usually, the core gameplay cycle is building very large stacks of troops in one spot, then eventually crushing your enemy if your stack is bigger. If you plan right, then you don’t lose anything but infantry, despite air and armor doing most of the killing.

The problem is mobility and reactivity. The reason they didn’t just stack up a huge army on one part of the line and ignore the rest–you can move fast enough to reinforce the line when you get hit. When Case Blue activated in 1942 and Germany punched through Soviet lines in the south, Soviet troops were able to retreat ahead of the Germans and reinforce from elsewhere before the assault reached operational objectives. But, this isn’t true in Axis and Allies. If Germany attacks a territory, the defenders have to die to the last man. No reinforcement, no evacuation. And the operations are limited in scope: in a turn, Germany will conquer Baltic States, Eastern Poland, and Bessarabia. Historically, in that first turn, Germany also conquered Belarus, Smolensk, Bryansk, Ukraine, Western Ukraine, Rostov, and half of Novgorod and Russia.

My initial thinking is fairly complicated. Multi-territory attack is necessary, obviously. But there must be an accompanying system to decrease the reliance on IPC value of territories so that Russia doesn’t just lose then and there. And a system to weaken that forward position Germany now occupies. Also something for the defender to do on the attacker’s turn, like abandon a battle, reinforce a rear area, or quickly counterattack.

I have more to post but I’m out of time. I’m interested to hear thoughts and feedback from the community. As I come up with the systems I’ve outlined, I’ll be posting them here.

I’ve got some first-round solutions to some of the problems, but not all. Still, of course, open to feedback. These are some pretty major reworks, be warned, and pretty far out and in need of balancing.

First, the ground assumptions. All units double in hit points, flat out. This serves to lengthen battles: since firepower doesn’t increase, it will take twice as long to completely destroy the enemy. Losses won’t grow exponentially as quickly, either. Ordinarily, by the third round of combat, the difference in firepower will be greater than it was at the start of combat, and so losses will be even MORE unbalanced. The ability to take damage doesn’t change this fact at the core, it just lengthens the time: from the third round to the sixth. For the first round of combat rolls, even after losses, the firepower ratio shouldn’t change. It’ll also make average rolling more likely.

But it mostly just allows for the critical element, in my mind: reconstitution. This isn’t one of the goals I outlined earlier, not directly, but I think it is necessary. Ordinarily, units are not thrown into battle until they are used up and then replaced with newly formed units. They are reinforced as they suffer losses, which vastly reduces costs. Thus, I offer the system of reserves. Reserves are the only additional chip you would need in these house rules, unless you want a chip to indicate ground troops which have suffered a hit point lost. To be clear, the term “Reserves” is key language. Reserves cost one IPC each, move two spaces, and can be spent to rebuild any military unit which has suffered damage–including during combat. A combat unit may only be reconstituted after a full round has passed since it was damaged. Reserves have no combat value, and are destroyed if captured. They may only be used on units in their own territory. Defenders receive 2 Reserves for every IPC value of the territory they are defending if it is core, flagged territory, but these Reserves are locked in place and may not be used offensively. 4 reserves fit on a transport.

The problem of reaction. Defenders may declare a retreat before the beginning of any combat round, and then retreat to an adjacent territory after rolling. Just the same as an attacker choosing to retreat. Non-territorial Reserves may retreat, but only after two rounds of combat are conducted. Territorial (IPC based) Reserves may never retreat.

Reinforcement. Defenders may reinforce a territory under attack, or any territory adjacent to a territory under attack, from adjacent territories. Any such reinforcement must be declared before the attacker rolls for the second combat round, and is only resolved after the defender rolls in the second combat round. Only one reinforcement may be conducted per combat round. Meaning, one destination territory, from any number of adjacent contributing territories. Reserves may be moved in this manner. However, per unit moved, including Reserves, one Reserve must be spent. To reinforce a battle with three infantry, two tanks, and five reserves all from the same territory, you must have fifteen reserves available in that territory: five to be moved, plus ten to fuel all of the movement.

Multiattack. If the attacker breaks through a territory in four combat rounds or fewer, the attacker may press on with remaining units that have movement left. This is the other use of Reserves: they may be expended to boost the movement of one unit by one. Thus, tanks and mechanized could potentially move 3 spaces. Infantry could move 2.

Cities. Victory cities and capital cities have a special defensibility. If a victory city is not captured in three rounds of combat, then the attack ends for the round with a contested territory. Neither side may collect IPCs from the territory, the defender may still produce units if there is a factory present. Either side may move in reinforcements during their own turn and/or decide to press the attack. Pressing the attack results in 3 rounds of combat, resulting in victory, defeat, or continued stalemate. If reinforcements are moved in without pressing the attack, 1 round of combat is conducted.

Implications. Reserves based on territory makes defense easier, but Reserves in general makes the whole war cheaper. Assuming you play conservatively, you need never lose a tank again. 1 IPC of Reserves can repair a 6 IPC tank. Attack three infantry with five tanks, and they are very unlikely to score more than five hits, which means you lose no units. Aircraft benefit TREMENDOUSLY, since they are just SO expensive to lose ordinarily and comparatively dirt cheap to repair.

The ability to multiattack. Germans can pretty easily get REALLY far into the Soviet Union if they go for a G2 or G3 and spend all their first round money stockpiling reserves. The speed boost, again kinda cheap, means they can just fly through defenders–if they have enough firepower. So the Luftwaffe probably won’t stay in the west, since they’ll need it badly to apply the overwhelming force necessary for lightning war.

The war in the west. Reserves take up space in factories and transports. For the US and Britain, this means building up longer, and probably some shuttle runs from the East Coast to London. Gonna need a lot more transports, and that takes time. It also means that German factories are going to be running full tilt to keep the Eastern Front supplied with the Reserves it needs, so strategic bombing is going to be EXTREMELY relevant even if Germany holds Ukraine, Leningrad, and has a major in Romania.

Defensive Reserves change the German strategy a bit. In the OOB rules, Germany usually runs a pretty active defense. Allies land, you hit them back, repeat. But if Germany gets a HUGE number of free Reserves in Western Germany, the Allies are going to be encouraged to land in France, not Germany, to build up, and the Germans are going to be inclined to let them do it, unless things are going very well in the East. And Germany can hold for a while in Paris with the city rules, delaying the Allies while they beat the Russians.

Pacific. China, lacking victory cities, valuable territory, or expensive units, may not benefit much from the rules. It would generally make them more survivable, but no more able to attack the Japanese, which I like. Hong Kong is still a cheap battle, but the Japanese will need to commit to make sure it gets taken out relatively quickly and doesn’t become a multi-round debacle. Same with Philippines. The Calcutta Crush can still end India as a serious threat, but it is unlikely to actually capitulate India quickly.

In favor of the Japanese, if they commit heavily to China then they can win EXTREMELY quickly. They can also defend against the United States in their home territory even more easily than currently–high IPC value means lots of Reserves already there, plus a capital means the US can only fight three combat rounds at a time. Bear in mind that since every unit has two hit points, three rounds in these rules is one and a half OOB. So Japan could abandon the Home Islands while it presses hard on Asia, and even US focus wouldn’t really be a danger.

But, overall I think it unbalances in favor of the Allies. Since the Allies hold the majority of victory cities and the majority of territory, they will be getting the majority of Reserves and benefiting from the defensiveness of cities. The Axis will be most often on the attack, and thus benefiting from the blitzkrieg capability, but reacting out of turn really reduces the likelihood of catastrophic breakthrough. And the Allies do no small amount of attacking. If China were to ever get BACK the territories it starts without, it would quickly become indomitable. So, the Axis need to pump up their starting attributes even more: they also get a TON of starting Reserves, so they can blast through France without losing a unit, blitz China, and fight a long war in India/Russia.

Reserves retreat slowly. If Germany makes a mistake and leaves a bunch of Reserves on the front line, but miscounts how many Soviet tanks and planes can reach the territory, the USSR could potentially wipe out a lot of value. Since the defender can retreat, they probably won’t bag much of the regular German units. But with superior enough firepower, they could destroy a lot of stockpiles. Gives more strategic targets for back-and-forth in the East. And cities mean there will be definite points around which defenses coalesce, giving a shape to the war.

Additional thoughts. Could make it so that no battles may last more than six rounds–they end in a stalemate, like WWI rules, after the sixth roll. Or something like that. Not super necessary. Alternatively, could rule that major industrial facilities give the same defensive advantages as victory cities. Off the top of my head, this is relevant only in two locations: Western Germany and Northern Italy. This would be good: Axis can hold a defensive line against the West for longer while crushing the Soviets.

This is another big rule: casualties within categories. For ground battles, there are three categories: air, [mechanized+tanks], and [infantry+artillery]. Any hits achieved by a category must be assigned to the corresponding category first, then assigned to other categories if necessary. Meaning, infantry meat shields only protect artillery, and only from other infantry and artillery. You need mechanized to be meatshields for your tanks, and your planes don’t get any shielding. It would be possible to lose all of your planes in a battle first, if the enemy has a decisive air advantage, but still win the battle if you have the advantage in armor and infantry. More of a use it, lose it scenario, where the most effective and expensive units aren’t immortal. After all, whatever unit does the most engaging is going to do the most dying.

I’ve most likely forgotten some major implications or rules clarification. Going to continue to update these over time. In the future, through playtesting. Happy for feedback, hope you find this an interesting read.

There’s a major implication which I had mostly brushed by mentally, regarding naval warfare. I don’t think it works for naval reserves to be deployed in mid combat off of transports–abstracted though the game may be, that just rubs me wrong. So, perhaps the rule may be that Reserves can only be used to reconstitute naval units while at a naval base. Transports move Reserves from your factories to Hawaii, where the fleet convalesces after a major engagement.

But that led me to possibly the biggest revolution thus far. Naval bases are KING. Navies fighting within range of friendly ports will have SUCH a tremendous advantage over the attacker! Think. Japan has three transports run out to Caroline Islands once, each full of Reserves, and then stations a loaded carrier, battleship, two cruisers, and four destroyers there. Twenty four hit points worth (all hit points doubled), you start losing dice after the first 14 losses assuming you don’t mind losing carrier operations. BUT! Those three transports, after one trip, have brought TWELVE Reserves! Double the number of losses the Japanese can take before they lose even a destroyer. And the US, attacking, CANNOT bring Reserves in for its navy. Thus, it would need to bring something like double the Japanese firepower to match hit points. The US would still be losing ships, and even if they don’t, they are now on the wrong end of a logistics chain. If they want to reconstitute the fleet the next round, they would need to have attacked with transports full of Reserves, IN ADDITION to all the transports they need for the actual land battle.

All this adds up to mean that a) island hopping is critical and b) to advance in the seas, you need ridiculous superiority.

A) If the US does manage to take a well-defended Caroline Islands, its going to need to build it up to act as a forward repair point immediately. Once this is done, it becomes once again difficult for Japan to take it back and that fleet can downsize and remain safe. But to edge up on a strong Japanese fleet, you would need to continuously repeat this process. Take a naval base that is relatively weak, reinforce the hell out of it, then repeat.

B) To assault an enemy fleet with Reserves, you will need a very high firepower ratio, particularly if you want to leave the battle with enough fleet to survive the counterattack.

What does this mean for gameplay? It means that Japan is even MORE defensive than I initially thought, and is encouraged to run out and grab a bunch of islands to fortify in the early game. Small portions of the Japanese fleet can keep the US bottled up for many rounds while Japan focuses on Calcutta and China. It buys time, but also lets the US act: instead of just building up until it outnumbers the Japanese home fleet, the US can move progressively and strategically across the map, slowly tightening the noose. The Japan player will steadily run out of strategic options as the American ring tightens, and must reach a point in Asia where they have enough income to out build the Americans and cut off the long logistical tail.

The implications in Europe are also excellent. The opening move of the game is almost always to see all of the navies destroyed, and this is sad. But now, Germany will need its planes to break the French swiftly, before getting bogged down in urban fighting–and most of the British navy will be FAR harder to kill. This is also true in the Mediterranean–for both sides. The Taranto Raid will likely be impossible, but if there are Reserves available in Egypt, neither will the Italians be able to kick the British out. So, end of round 1, what do we have? British navy in the Atlantic battered but still strong, and tense draw in the Mediterranean with both sides unable to gain an advantage–but still capable of agency. Malta would suddenly be critically important: if Italy gets it and builds a naval base, it can project power into North Africa without engaging the RN. If Britain builds a naval base and is able to defend it, then the Italians will never resupply Africa.

Overall, it means that naval powers will be naval powers longer. The British will likely always have a pretty powerful fleet, the Italians will have options besides “watch it all sink round 1.” Africa might be less dynamic, but I think it could also be MORE dynamic, with a real back-and-forth push. If Italy gets the naval base at Cairo, then the British navy in the Medi is forfeit. But its a victory city, so even if they are capturing the territory, the British will be able to hold out for a while and reinforce.

Intact British navy in the Atlantic just means more gameplay for the British player. While fighting for Africa, they won’t be able to launch major cross-channel landings, but they could do raids or other creative stuff if they see a weakness. It does mean that a Sealion game is difficult to the point of impossible, but I’m not too mad considering it was impossible historically.

Benefits both sides equally I think. Italy would take a lot longer to lose the Mediterranean, Germany will have much less ability to mess with the British. But Japan would have a FAR easier time keeping the US on the outside while beating up Asia. Japanese victory would be difficult considering the number of island Victory Cities they need to take, but they could likely get ahold of cash flow and keep it.

A little proud. If a system can be applied to an unexpected target and still produces the desired result, its probably a good system. I love that my idea based entirely on simulating warfare on the Eastern Front didn’t do too miserably working for the Pacific.

As usual, this is just one iteration. More will come, including edits.

Some further thinking led me to some conclusions. First, navies shouldn’t be able to spend Reserves on reconstitution mid-combat. It breaks the realism I set out to establish, and it makes naval warfare simply impossible for the attacker. It should still cost Reserves to repair damaged units. It should also still be possible for navies to retreat as a defender, or be reinforced from nearby naval or air bases.

Second, screw transports. Radical new idea: transports should be eliminated entirely. They serve two roles: logistics and assault. Logistics are already handwaved for transporting units over land, why shouldn’t that be true for water? If an infantry piece is assumed to come with all of the trucks to sustain it arbitrarily deep in Russia, then why shouldn’t it also come with all the merchant marine shipping required to move it over water? Gameplay wise, it makes island hopping and island garrison so difficult and tedious that I almost never see it attempted. It forces the player to move MASSIVE escort forces to cover each transport, or sacrifice them for a single use. You can’t move just a destroyer with a transport, because that will quickly run you out of money and the enemy will probably STILL destroy it.

My proposal? Ground units can move over water from friendly land to friendly land just as you would with a transport. If launching from a naval base, they can cross three sea zones before they must encounter a friendly landing zone. If launching without a base, two sea zones. And again, this is ONLY for movement from friendly territory to friendly territory. To fill in the assault role of transports, battleships and cruisers step in. Each gains a transport capacity, since they already have shore bombardment. We suppose that the piece for a battleship or cruiser represents a combined fleet unit that would be capable of launching and supporting naval invasions. Cruisers carry one unit, battleships two. This makes those warships actually worth building. Opposed naval assaults get a lot more expensive, while moving reinforcements around the rear area becomes easier, which is moderately historical.

Some auxiliary ideas are likely necessary. If Germany can easily get troops to Norway without expenditure, it hurts balance. If the US can freely move masses of infantry to Hawaii and England, it hurts balance. Perhaps rules on capacity, similar to railroads in HBGs Global War, where a country has a set merchant marine capacity that they can pay to increase. And allow enemy aircraft and warships to intercept lines of communication, sinking a random number of moving units similar to convoy raiding (actually, it literally is convoy raiding). Reserves would be similarly transported of their own accord through the seas.

Less revolutionary: a new imagining of paratroopers. Under the rules I’ve outlined in this thread, defenders have a lot of new advantages. They can retreat, they can reinforce, and if a battle lasts too long, they can force a stalemate. Paratroopers would work as they did historically: they would not reinforce battles with numbers, but engage the enemy in weak points to disrupt their ability to retreat, reinforce, or force a stalemate. Paratroopers would use the tac bomber piece, cost 7-10 IPCs each, and would increase the time limit on all of those aforementioned factors by 1 combat round. Under the rules I outlined earlier in the thread, paratroopers landing successfully (not shot down by intercepting fighters or AAA) would leave the defender unable to declare a retreat until round 2, unable to reinforce until the beginning of round 3, and would give the attacker 5 rounds of combat before breakthrough and blitz is no longer allowed. Thus, paratroopers can serve to hold down a weak army and let it be destroyed, or let Germany actually capture a major Russian city in a single round of fighting. A caveat: if the enemy decides to retreat or reinforce anyway, or if the extended time limit isn’t enough to win the battle, the paratrooper unit is destroyed on the ground.

Aircraft changes. Strategic bombers are stupid. They are by far the best plane in roles they historically had no part: the most significant use of level bombers against naval combatants was Midway, where they were deliberately sent to be destroyed and keep the Japanese occupied. They also saw tactical use EXTREMELY rarely. This is the role of tactical bombers. Strategic bombers were used famously for one thing: destruction of industry, at which they excelled. So, I suggest dropping the price of strategic bombers to 8 IPCs and reducing their attack to 1. They would have two mission profiles: destroying industry, and destroying reserves. Tactical bombers as a discrete piece are also somewhat unnecessary; just fold their rules into fighters, it doesn’t change much. Two fighters paired with each other means one attacks at three and the other at four.

Bomber interception is also a miserable rule. I almost never see it done, because if the defender gets unlucky once and loses a fighter without killing a bomber, the IPC cost essentially wasn’t worth it. So, fighters should retain their defense value of 4 when intercepting. Escort fighters would use their attack value of 3, bombers retain their value of 1. Strategic bombing would be done more often since Reserves would vastly increase the volume of production and since strategic bombers are so much more affordable. But, interception would become much more viable as a defensive tactic. Some thought should be put to additional rules in that regard: should the air battle continue for multiple rounds? Perhaps limit that only two bombers may roll bombing damage per round of combat, so that for a large bombing raid, combat may last three or four rounds and see many attacking bombers destroyed.

AAA has always needed a boost. It sucks and is boring. Under this system, it already gets two more important uses: shooting down paratroopers and stopping strategic bombing raids on Reserves. But, it is expensive and very incapable, so I think it should also get its defense value boosted to 2 or maybe even 3. And, of course, having more AAA than enemy planes should ABSOLUTELY increase the odds that said planes get shot down.

Lastly, to compensate for Japan’s increased ability to blitz, they should get a MASSIVE bonus for defeating China and not being at war with Russia. Like, ten IPCs. This would give them the power to overcome the defensiveness of the Allies if they’ve turtled, and would prevent the painfully ahistorical strategy of absorbing Siberia.

To put all of these rules together. Japan should be able to easily garrison the islands it holds at game start without expending a dozen transports. It should also, through blockade, be able to stop the US from doing the same to Guam, Wake, and Philippines. The US, unable to hold troops on board transport units, would need to fight an island hopping campaign across the Pacific to build its Floating Bridge. Battleships and cruisers being used for opposed landings, however, means that while logistics are easier, taking enemy territory is slower and harder. Historical, considering that even the mighty USMC did not attempt concurrent landings on half the Pacific like we so often see in A&A. In China, Japan would have a stronger enemy to fight, but would be more able with easy access from Japan, obviating the MIC it usually must build. Japan wouldn’t get much use out of paratroopers since China is so lacking in defensible features (cities) and firepower for reinforcement or retreat from battle. Beating India and Australia would be substantially more difficult, though, and would take time. That the IJN would be able to buy, since it could delay the US with island engagements and fight delaying actions without being destroyed.

In Europe. Germany would be able to cut deep into the USSR by expending Reserves for multiple attacks, but would be rendered a glass cannon and would have to avoid Russian cities for speed. Russia would also be able to preserve the strength of its army by trading space for time, and counterattack at its choosing. Germany would be able to partially counter these advantages by selectively employing expensive paratroopers to hold down Russian strength and destroy it, and the Russians would then build AAA to kill those paratroopers and preserve their mobility. So the front line for both sides would be roughly evenly spread troops and Reserves across the front to preserve strategic surprise and flexibility, with AAA at the most important locations. An offensive season for Germany would involve isolating the weak point in the line, hammering it with bombers to destroy its sustainability, and dropping paratroopers to cut off reinforcements. If it works, your paratroopers are likely dead and bombers attrited, but you would have taken fewer step losses than the enemy. So instead of repairing, you spend your Reserves as fuel and punch clean through the line, attacking the next territory, but now without your air support. But it isn’t as well defended, so you win anyway, and spend your reserves one last time to get your tanks into Moscow. Three rounds of combat later, the city is a stalemate, your Reserves are gone, and almost every unit of yours is damaged. You launch a few more attacks down the line to keep the troops busy, maybe reinforce the Leningrad siege to keep the Russians from evacuating, and then hope it was enough.

In Western Europe. The US would have to spend the first couple rounds building up an ASW force to prevent interception of the troops it sends, but then would start building up quickly in Britain. It wouldn’t be able to land in Europe for many rounds, though, not without lots of very expensive warships, so Germany is safe to focus elsewhere while Italy delays the British. American bombers ravage German industry in the meantime. Just before launching the amphibious invasion, the bombers hit France and Belgium to destroy Reserves and immobilize potential Reinforcements, then blast the landing sites on the eve of landing. The Normandy landings see heavy paratrooper use to compensate for the small number of landing troops, cutting off any surviving reinforcements. Only a few Americans land, but massive air power, naval bombardment, and battlefield preparation carries the day. Besides, Germany has better defensible territory inland: when the Americans advance into Paris, they are embroiled in city fighting for multiple rounds. Belgium has stockpiled Territorial Reserves which make the attack costly, and Western Germany is the worst of both with enormous Reserves, strong AAA to ward off strikes, and thick industry to slow down the fighting to a crawl.

But if the US has gotten this far, German days are numbered. It cannot support the war in Russia without the industrial base of Western Europe. Having failed to seize Moscow, Germany starts to fall back, unable to build Reserves quickly enough to keep from hemorrhaging costly units. But, the narrowing frontage and German air superiority means the Russians can’t easily achieve breakthrough. To do so, they would need to destroy the enemy Reserves with bombers and land paratroopers to gain beachheads, but they can’t afford many of either, and Germany has plenty of fighters to shoot them down. So they advance slowly with tanks and infantry.

And finally, eight rounds after landing in Normandy, the Battle of Berlin finally begins. It lasts for two rounds more. Japan has taken advantage of the lack of attention to secure Asia, and then finally struck at Honolulu with all of its power. The landings were costly and long, but eventually, Japan prevailed by blockading US reinforcements and pouring in infantry and tanks. The Axis wins the game.

Such is my imagination, at least. I can see how the rules as I have written them could create that game. I am playtesting this week for the first time, I will write up a comprehensive and detailed AAR. I suspect it will be illuminating.