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.

Here’s the brief of the pitch, assuming G40 rules: Allies and Axis alternate with a very significant buff. For now, simplistically, lets say all of their units roll at 1 value higher than ordinary–a tank scores a hit on a 4 or lower, an infantry attacks at 2 and defends at 3. Axis gets the buff on odd-numbered turns and Allies on even turns.

The long of the pitch:

Currently, the concept of “initiative” is vaguely modeled by turns. Germany has the initiative on Germany’s turn. If we accept that as true, then we also accept that there is no initiative in the defense. This is also supported by the general advantage of the attacker, in that defenders can’t retreat or reinforce, and so are almost always guaranteed to lose battles and suffer disproportionate losses.

I find this somewhat jarring. Germany seems strong at the end of their turn, and Russia seems strong a moment later. Both sides tend to attack frequently. Sometimes, it can be advantageous to hold in reserve and gather forces, but it is somewhat niche; the opportunity cost is just so high, the enemy can do so much if you leave their forces alive. More frequently, you hold back from attacking just so that you can hold the enemy at risk—a tank army in Leningrad is more valuable if it is NOT used.

So why do I think a seasonal advantage would help? For one, it guardrails opponent behavior somewhat, which makes the game slightly easier to forecast, therefore enabling longer-term strategy. You can predict that on turn 5, the Allies will tend to hold their positions. You can bet that Japan will go after a big fleet on turn 3 or 5, but not 4.

Two, it directly encourages both sides to carefully gather up forces for a big “pulse” of action, rather than continuously expend forces for incremental gains (on the reference set of the game, not real life—capturing all Belarus in a round is not incremental by real-world standards). Pull back and organize on the enemy’s advantage, then expend the effort you’ve gathered on the turn of your advantage.

To better address the issue of defense, perhaps we add another, greater rule: the defender can retreat on the turn of their initiative. If Germany exposes itself to take Ukraine, and the Russians have a correlation of forces sufficient to overcome the dice modifiers, then even still, the Germans are able to preserve their forces if not their territory. Without this rule, perhaps I’ve created a misaligned incentive; since the enemy has a positive dice modifier whether they are attacking or defending, perhaps it is better for the disadvantaged side to pitch everything into attacks, where at least they can control the correlation of forces and advantage themselves.

To talk specifics: I would suggest that the game switch to d12s, and every unit’s attack and defense value is increased by 1. So a tank attacks at 7, while the enemy tank only defends at 6. A boost of +1 on a d6 might be too severe. Though, I’m open to dissent there. Maybe 1 point on a d12 is too subtle.

I also think that the Axis advantage should last slightly longer at the start of the game. Perhaps they get the bonus on turn 1 AND turn 2, and Allies get it on turn 3 and all odd turns thereafter. Or, Axis gets odd turns, but Allies skip their first advantage and only get the initiative starting turn 4.

Perhaps the idea needs a larger adjustment, and it should just focus on the weather? What if odd turns occur during pleasant summers, so planes, tanks, and ships get a +1? Winters similarly penalize ships, tanks, and planes with a -1 modifier. Infantry and artillery are more durable and less affected by storms. This would produce very different incentives: rather than favoring one alliance at a time, it favors certain units. Infantry armies lead the way during winter, then tanks strike back in summer. Navies steer clear of each other on odd turns. Perhaps some combination of both rules, where odd turns are Axis-initiative summers, and they are encouraged to leave Allied tanks and planes alone since they get debuffs in winter. On the Allied initiative, they should favor infantry armies and go after Axis armor specifically.

This is a rambling post, containing a lot of somewhat separable ideas. I would love to hear the thoughts of the board on part or all of these concepts.

I think I’m going to rebuild the idea ground-up and implement it in a different ruleset, but for the sake of the discussion, these are my thoughts.

I do recognize that a tank piece does not represent a single tank, or even a large all-tank unit, but rather a combined arms unit that includes tanks, artillery, dismount infantry, and of course fuel trucks and other add-ons. My objective isn’t to “increase realism” (without increasing realism) by having tanks mostly engage other tanks, but rather, give the defender some way to even out the loss ratio in terms of cost. If the attacker has the firepower advantage and brings lots of infantry, then the defender will lose expensive aircraft and expensive tanks without attriting enemy air or armor. THIS is the problem. Aircraft and tanks can effect damage without taking it. In the simple concept outlined in the OP, that would be partially remedied. The attacker could lose all of their planes and still win the battle.

Overall, I think it’s too simple a method for targeting attacks. Tanks WILL be somewhat protected by their infantry. Strategic bombers are not going to shoot down fighters. I had a slightly better idea a while ago, that for fighters, a roll of a 1 hits an enemy aircraft, and a tactical bomber rolling a 1 hits an enemy tank. Again, though, the objective isn’t entirely to tunnel-vision onto realism for specific units, but rather to improve the strategic decision making. In too many games, German aircraft fly constantly against the Soviet Union, never taking losses while German infantry get torn to pieces. On the strategic level, any piece of equipment that sees action is going to be regularly lost, and need replacement, but this is not always seen in A&A.

I appreciate the discussion, all. At the moment, I’m still in the brainstorming stage, but once I have a few games to report on, I’ll write up a ruleset and share it. Thanks everyone.

@Imperious-Leader Yeah, you’re right. It’s a whole can of worms I frankly don’t want to get into, not for a fully analog board game. Absolutely worthwhile in a digital wargame, but for me, it crosses the line of bookkeeping and management if I can’t make a computer do it. Realism does not, as you say, always make an improvement.

Advice taken, drop the weather concept.

@The-Captain Is this space solely for publishing of polished results? My intent was to bounce off ideas from other, experienced players, and see if they have implemented similar rules in the past, or can otherwise relate productively. Might save reinventing the wheel–while I could iterate two dozen times and then report back, that might be a waste of two dozen games if someone already did it five years ago.

Here’s the brief of the pitch, assuming G40 rules: Allies and Axis alternate with a very significant buff. For now, simplistically, lets say all of their units roll at 1 value higher than ordinary–a tank scores a hit on a 4 or lower, an infantry attacks at 2 and defends at 3. Axis gets the buff on odd-numbered turns and Allies on even turns.

The long of the pitch:

Currently, the concept of “initiative” is vaguely modeled by turns. Germany has the initiative on Germany’s turn. If we accept that as true, then we also accept that there is no initiative in the defense. This is also supported by the general advantage of the attacker, in that defenders can’t retreat or reinforce, and so are almost always guaranteed to lose battles and suffer disproportionate losses.

I find this somewhat jarring. Germany seems strong at the end of their turn, and Russia seems strong a moment later. Both sides tend to attack frequently. Sometimes, it can be advantageous to hold in reserve and gather forces, but it is somewhat niche; the opportunity cost is just so high, the enemy can do so much if you leave their forces alive. More frequently, you hold back from attacking just so that you can hold the enemy at risk—a tank army in Leningrad is more valuable if it is NOT used.

So why do I think a seasonal advantage would help? For one, it guardrails opponent behavior somewhat, which makes the game slightly easier to forecast, therefore enabling longer-term strategy. You can predict that on turn 5, the Allies will tend to hold their positions. You can bet that Japan will go after a big fleet on turn 3 or 5, but not 4.

Two, it directly encourages both sides to carefully gather up forces for a big “pulse” of action, rather than continuously expend forces for incremental gains (on the reference set of the game, not real life—capturing all Belarus in a round is not incremental by real-world standards). Pull back and organize on the enemy’s advantage, then expend the effort you’ve gathered on the turn of your advantage.

To better address the issue of defense, perhaps we add another, greater rule: the defender can retreat on the turn of their initiative. If Germany exposes itself to take Ukraine, and the Russians have a correlation of forces sufficient to overcome the dice modifiers, then even still, the Germans are able to preserve their forces if not their territory. Without this rule, perhaps I’ve created a misaligned incentive; since the enemy has a positive dice modifier whether they are attacking or defending, perhaps it is better for the disadvantaged side to pitch everything into attacks, where at least they can control the correlation of forces and advantage themselves.

To talk specifics: I would suggest that the game switch to d12s, and every unit’s attack and defense value is increased by 1. So a tank attacks at 7, while the enemy tank only defends at 6. A boost of +1 on a d6 might be too severe. Though, I’m open to dissent there. Maybe 1 point on a d12 is too subtle.

I also think that the Axis advantage should last slightly longer at the start of the game. Perhaps they get the bonus on turn 1 AND turn 2, and Allies get it on turn 3 and all odd turns thereafter. Or, Axis gets odd turns, but Allies skip their first advantage and only get the initiative starting turn 4.

Perhaps the idea needs a larger adjustment, and it should just focus on the weather? What if odd turns occur during pleasant summers, so planes, tanks, and ships get a +1? Winters similarly penalize ships, tanks, and planes with a -1 modifier. Infantry and artillery are more durable and less affected by storms. This would produce very different incentives: rather than favoring one alliance at a time, it favors certain units. Infantry armies lead the way during winter, then tanks strike back in summer. Navies steer clear of each other on odd turns. Perhaps some combination of both rules, where odd turns are Axis-initiative summers, and they are encouraged to leave Allied tanks and planes alone since they get debuffs in winter. On the Allied initiative, they should favor infantry armies and go after Axis armor specifically.

This is a rambling post, containing a lot of somewhat separable ideas. I would love to hear the thoughts of the board on part or all of these concepts.

@chrisbump86 I like the idea, it really makes the turn order critical, rather than a slight advantage for first movers. However, I feel like it pretty significantly favors the Axis, who start with the initiative and go earlier. Do you pair it with any other modifications to compensate?

Might try it my next game.

I think I’m going to rebuild the idea ground-up and implement it in a different ruleset, but for the sake of the discussion, these are my thoughts.

I do recognize that a tank piece does not represent a single tank, or even a large all-tank unit, but rather a combined arms unit that includes tanks, artillery, dismount infantry, and of course fuel trucks and other add-ons. My objective isn’t to “increase realism” (without increasing realism) by having tanks mostly engage other tanks, but rather, give the defender some way to even out the loss ratio in terms of cost. If the attacker has the firepower advantage and brings lots of infantry, then the defender will lose expensive aircraft and expensive tanks without attriting enemy air or armor. THIS is the problem. Aircraft and tanks can effect damage without taking it. In the simple concept outlined in the OP, that would be partially remedied. The attacker could lose all of their planes and still win the battle.

Overall, I think it’s too simple a method for targeting attacks. Tanks WILL be somewhat protected by their infantry. Strategic bombers are not going to shoot down fighters. I had a slightly better idea a while ago, that for fighters, a roll of a 1 hits an enemy aircraft, and a tactical bomber rolling a 1 hits an enemy tank. Again, though, the objective isn’t entirely to tunnel-vision onto realism for specific units, but rather to improve the strategic decision making. In too many games, German aircraft fly constantly against the Soviet Union, never taking losses while German infantry get torn to pieces. On the strategic level, any piece of equipment that sees action is going to be regularly lost, and need replacement, but this is not always seen in A&A.

I appreciate the discussion, all. At the moment, I’m still in the brainstorming stage, but once I have a few games to report on, I’ll write up a ruleset and share it. Thanks everyone.

It has always somewhat bothered me that fighters on both sides of a battle would choose to engage only the borderline-ineffective enemy infantry rather than each other. The meta strategy of “infantry meat-shield” is dumb as shit from a perspective of realism; from a game design perspective, it is only marginally better. It means that the defender will strongly be disadvantaged in loss ratios, since the attacker, if played right, won’t lose anything more expensive than infantry.

So, how about limiting hit choice by combat ability? Hits have to be assigned to the class by which they have been inflicted. Tank hits have to be assigned to tanks, fighter hits have to be assigned to fighters, and only once you run out can you choose to assign hits to your infantry from these high-value enemies. Essentially, if you use it, you lose it. Armor and aircraft attrition would go through the roof, and actually start to match their utility.

Only a basic concept at the moment, the idea needs firming up. Thoughts?

@Rhino said in [Global] Alternate pieces & rules for Axis & allies:

Some cheaper planes. Stuka is only 8 att 3 Def 1 wich is realistic because they could not defend.

This caught my eye. While I’m all in favor of nerfing a German specific unit for a change, I think you and I might interpret the “defense” stat differently and I am intrigued by how you might read it, and play it. To me, tactical bombers remain useful in defense because they do almost exactly what they do while attacking. Blow up bridges, blast roads, find enemy columns and chew them up, only doing it while the army is moving backwards, not forwards. Or, do you use the “defense” stat to measure an aircraft’s ability to avoid being shot down during interception? Because that is definitely correct for a Stuka, as I’m sure you know. If so, I’m interested in how you play that rule. I want to improve rules on aircraft interception in my own games, I’m not satisfied with the box rules.

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.

Perhaps it plays out differently, but just at a glance, it seems like it would weaken the UK navy in the Channel but preserve the transport and destroyer. So, Germany would destroy the bulk of the British fleet still, but the UK would retain a core to build off of, once it retreats to Canada.

Mediterranean strength is slightly improved for the Allies, I think. They lose the French fleet, but it rarely had much effect. They gain centralized power in the UK fleet, and the Italians and Germans have to split their power in the sector. Less than ideal for the Axis.

Most of all, I like the rules on the Free French gaining units over time. France doesn’t get much of a game, but furthermore, its a perpetual downward spiral. At least with a trickle of new troops, they can continue to have their tiny little victories perpetually.

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.