@Slip-Capone And also we don’t play Economic victory.
Posts made by aftertaste
RE: Summer Battle of Britain - 16 June 2019 - See Battle Report
RE: Summer Battle of Britain - 16 June 2019 - See Battle Report
@Slip-Capone Yes good point, I did forget to mention that we played without the Economic Collapse thing for Russia.
RE: Summer Battle of Britain - 16 June 2019 - See Battle Report
Central Powers: Germany (G), Austria/Hungary (AH) - Mike (aftertaste). Ottoman Empire (OE) - Jon (Jon1988).
Entente: Russia - Tomas (Duklapasser). France (F), UK (UK, duh!) - Andrew (holymonk). Italy (Italy, because it always sounds like I’m talking about myself when I type I), USA (US, as if it wouldn’t be obvious by this point), - Colin (GuiltyCol).
Two house rules were played throughout, 2 territory movement permitted for ‘non-combat’ moves on land, and a 4 build limit to India.
The CP opened with typical strikes into Venice, Serbia and Belgium, however, poor co-ordination between G and AH led G to under commit in Poland leaving a juicy target for R’s massive stack in Ukraine. The UK fleets were eliminated, but only a single G battleship remained in the North Sea, her crew desperately trying to pump water out of her many shell holes. Venice managed to hold, and that was as far as AH ever made it into Italy,
The Entente responded in turn 1 with a slow, defensive posture, with limited attacks by all except for R, who eliminated G’s army in Poland with ease, confident that AH was not yet in position to launch a concentrated invasion, in addition to eliminating an OE cruiser squadron. The UK made landings in Saudi Arabia and the territory west of it (I forget the name), but largely, the first turn was unremarkable. F finished off G’s battleship with his own.
It was clear that the CP went for ‘Russia First’, but with the initial G stack destroyed, most reinforcements were sent east, delaying an invasion proper, and ensuring that the CP were defensive on the western front, especially with Italy’s stubborn defence of Venice.
AH took Romania whilst OE swallowed Bulgaria and sent some units west later on to aid AH, who had to contend with the lions share of the forces committed to Russia. OE fought to contain UK incursions whilst also attempting an aggressive Med Sea campaign, which ended in unlimited glory… and hundreds of deaths, I should imagine.
The mid game was heated, with UK and OE dancing around each other in the Middle East, but OE plugging all gaps expertly. F tried to help, bless them, but the captain of a transport - whose modest force of proto-marines could have really been a thorn in the side of OE - either had the wrong charts or one too many in the mess before steering straight into an OE mine! Cheers mixed with moans of despair ensued!
The AH fleet received some unusual attention by a certain Entente member throughout the game, and managed to account for itself well, eliminated units from F, the UK and Italy, but it was eventually sunk, allowing the F/Italy landings to take place without fear of a sortie.
Italy and F promptly began landing in Albania, and whilst never a serious threat, did divert AH units from Russia. Italy eventually began an offensive into AH that was only held at bay by OE units marching across the Balkans. Africa was unusual this game, as G headed straight for Egypt and even managed to take it for a time, frustrating UK efforts to dominate OE. We subsequently learned that a player may NOT amphibious assault into an ongoing engagement, c’est la vie.
In the East, AH and a reinvigorated G took Ukraine, but at a cost. Dice rolls were good for G and AH throughout, regularly coming out above average, but the CP still had a mans job on their hands to take Moscow before the Entente could start to take advantage of their numerical superiority.
By late game, the lead had switched at least twice, with no clear winner in sight. The US had a fleet inbound to France and G had no way to stem the tide. One spoiling attack in Belgium managed to nibble off some UK units, but a strong F and eventual UK build up was
probing into Germanyon the absolute rampage, by the game’s end. Italy - as mentioned - was aggressive, and that really told when AH started to divert units away from Russia.
OE eventually drove the UK out of the home territories, and there was even talk of abandoning India by the UK, with a large force in Persia poised to strike. Africa was finally ‘saved’ by the Entente as the CP had no way to reinforce, and G’s remaining subs made a go at a F fleet off of Portugal, but even an unlikely victory would have had little effect on the outcome.
Before the game was called, AH and G had been making inroads into Moscow, but the Imperial Russian Air Force clearly had some secret tech, like MiG 15’s or something, because they were shooting down CP fighters like it was going out of fashion! Progress for the CP was slow and grinding, and even though G managed to cut a path through most of Russia, the northern territories were left open to that US fleet from before.
Those men really made the difference, because without them, Moscow would probably have fallen. G thought he was being sooo freaking clever when he bought a cruiser to block the Baltic Sea, but clearly the Admiral died early on, because nobody pointed out that there was a perfectly usable northern sea route! Epic Fail of the match!
However, the game was NOT over, because OE, being the team carrying champion that he is, diverted his India army to the Ukraine, in an effort to gain the final victory, at the expense of keeping the UK on the back foot.
Unfortunately, the game did end before a full conclusion could be drawn up. But the players all agreed that a game that ebbed and flowed the way that this one did deserved a final battle, or two or three, because the battle of Moscow went on until one side won or lost.
It was fought.
But by the end, as the sun set for the final time over the corpse choked fields and rubble filled streets of Moscow, the bullet ridden and blood stained flag of his Imperial Majesty, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, flew over what remained of the Kremlin.
The game was called as an Allied victory.
It was a hard fought game, with many a twist of fate and
not too mucha great deal of swearing. And in truth, we don’t really know who would have won for certain, because by the end, we were skipping almost entire goes, just to get back to the fighting in Moscow. Perhaps the CP could have reinforced before the Entente rolled into Berlin or Vienna, (G was on a very healthy income), but it is just as likely that the UK would have taken advantage of the lack of OH units and smashed Istanbul.
Whatever the result, we will always remember the look on G’s face when he realised the blunder he made purchasing that damned cruiser!
RE: Spring Battle of Britain - 24 March 2019 - See Battle Report
The game began with a limited Russian counterattack that easily eliminated forward German elements, and a slow transfer of units away from the Japanese frontier, purchases for Russia were typical - but strategically sound - throughout the game.
Germany managed to lose his only bomber in a glorious and honourable strategic bombing raid turn one, and then shocked the Allies by moving almost every offensive unit on the board in the direction of Moscow, immediately tipping the Allies off to the Axis intentions. However, no serious offensive action was taken until midway through the game.
The Kriegsmarine made some initial headway against the UK navy but was ultimately eliminated, as was the small fleet in the Med. Lip service was given to the Afrika Korps, and the Allies never really had any threat in Africa or the Middle East.
In the Pacific, Japan constructed a battle ship and tried to keep the Allied navies at arms length, but won a surprising victory against the whole US Pacific fleet early on. A half hearted ‘Man in the High Castle’ invasion was attempted, but driven off, and from that point, the Pacific was very quiet.
China was a steady slog for the Japanese, who, having agreed to take Moscow with Germany, grimly marched across the Chinese and skirmished with the British around Burma. By the wars conclusion, British units were liberating left, right, and Chelsea, but a Japanese factory in Manchuria gave the impression of either a long winded draw, or a very long winded Japanese victory, as they had free reign of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
The US took off with gusto and focused on the Atlantic, as Germany practically gifted France to them. France, Italy, Denmark and the Low Countries exchanged hands several times as the Germans had to divert more and more away from the Russian front.
Combined UK and US operations, coupled with the total abandonment of the Pacific by the US, meant that the Western front was lost to the Germans from the outset of Allied offensive operations. A factory in France was testament to the efforts of the Allies determination to press their only real advantage in the war.
The game was - unfortunately - called due to time constraints, but not before honour could be satisfied. Germany can opened Moscow for Japan, having only taken small bites out of the main Soviet forces up to this point, and received some extremely fortunate dice rolls that made Japans follow up victory a possibility. It was decided that the turn sequence would be forgone and the Allies would launch an all out attack with everything they had to try to take Berlin.
Before the final battle, it was agreed by the participants that an Allied victory would result in a draw, and a successful Axis defence would be an Axis victory. The battle was the last action of the day and there was a great deal of cheering and not a little swearing by the perfidious Germans, but five fighters and just enough boys and old men eliminated the Allied invasion. (One successful AA defence roll being a significant contribution).
The game was called as an Axis victory, but it was conceded that there was a good chance that it would have been an eventual Allied victory, if the game had continued for a few more turns.
This was an unconventional game that ebbed and flowed with no clear outcome even to the last, and was thoroughly enjoyed by all involved and all who watched the conclusion. Jon and Colin (who were both new to the Battle of Britain, but definitely not to A&A) fought valiantly, and were formidable and flexible from the word go. Dale’s willingness to stick to his panicky ally and his shaky battle plan was commendable, and certainly his commitment was a major contributor to the final victory.
RE: Winter Battle of Britain - 27th January 2019 - See Battle Report
Some parts of the game that were overlooked by Private-Panic:
Germany pursued an aggressive Dreadnought building policy that would have made Alfred Tirpitz proud, on the back of annihilating the Royal Navy around England, persuading France to move her two battleships and one cruiser to the North Sea to contain the German fleet. Throughout the war, the UK was forced to divert funds away from Europe to maintain naval parity, meaning that the middle east was the focus of British offensives, which the Ottomans rather handily kept at arms reach, despite almost every territory in the region changing hands at least twice.
An aside of the UK spending a fair portion of its funds on the RN meant France had the lions share of the responsibilities against Germany on the continent.
The Black Sea fleets cancelled each other out, Britain lost two cruisers in a (if we’re being honest with ourselves, Dukla ) pointless attack on the A-H fleet, and the Russian Baltic battleship bravely did nothing throughout the war.
On the Dark Continent, Germany did everything in her power to frustrate the Entente, conducting sound strategic moves coupled with exceptional dice rolls. Germany’s position in Africa is utterly hopeless outside of divine intervention, but all things considered, Credulous acquitted himself well.
A well fought game by all involved that could very easily have ended in a CP victory, but by the games conclusion, it was all Germany could do to keep the French and (rather late) British away from Berlin, and Italy was rampaging through A-H with reckless abandon, taking advantage of their foothold in Albania that was never given proper attention by the CP for the whole war.
Something I personally took away from this game was that for the CP, mainly A-H and G, building a warship now and again - whilst unconventional - might be a good strategy to force the Entente to spend more than you did to keep you contained, ultimately costing them more. Maintaining two fleets in being might be an idea for players in the future.
RE: Destroyers for Bases
I could spend hours talking to you about this I suspect, but to keep things quick, my position on the general opinion of the British at the time of the DfB deal is seen as a part of the whole decline of the Empire, which you lay out quite clearly.
I imagine that were I a British citizen of the Empire, as happy as I may have been that the RN were receiving 50 destroyers, we had to share parts of the Empire with a shining example of how successful a nation can be without it, which wouldn’t look good (from a British perspective) for other parts of the Empire. Canada, India, Australia, and New Zealand being the lead examples.
I see your point and I agree, this does unbalance the game and to be honest, I hadn’t even considered that sort of angle before when suggesting House Rules, some of my other suggestions are universal, and this was an attempt at one for a certain Alliance. I have given it some thought though after reading your response…
The way I see it, the DfB rule is within the Allies Alliance and is reflective of their co-operative nature in general. Were I to do a similar unique rule for the Axis and the Comintern, I would have to (at least in the way I come up with House Rules) find some sort of historical justification, because I’m fun like that.
For the Comintern, I’ve been toying with one called Maskirovka - which I am sure CWO Marc knows a lot about - but the point of the rule would be similar to the Japanese Surprise Attack but only for land units and the only combat modifier being that defending units receive -1 on defence for one round. It would also allow the Comintern player to move units into the attack from territories that are beyond the land units usual range. This is to reflect that historically, the Soviets were good at deceiving the Axis as to where there divisions actually were, allowing them to concentrate a massive numerical advantage in certain areas.
There would have to be certain restrictions as to how many units can do this and how far, for obvious reasons, and only allow it once, but I feel that the Maskirovka rule could be a good balance for the Comintern if the Allies are allowed DfB.
The Axis is more difficult for me because anything that I could think of has probably been covered in an expansion, and I haven’t seen them all so any attempt would be a stab in the dark, but…
The Germans had blockade runners that would take technical specifications and equipment to Japan in exchange for exotic and rare materials. Now, I know almost nothing about the specifics historically, so I am on unfamiliar territory, but I was thinking of a rule where Japan and Germany exchange, say, a certain number of free technology rolls for Japan and a one time boost of IPC’s for Germany. This rule is even less fleshed out than the Maskirovka, so feedback is welcome.
I am totally against not using allied facilities in GW36, I think it is, quite frankly, a stupid rule, but I’ve never made a board game, so what do I know?
With regards to the destroyers given being TBD’s, the ships that the UK received were overhauled to the standards of the day, so I figured that after some time in the production queue, they would be just as capable as any other destroyers. There could be an exchange of IPC’s, but I wanted to make rules that add a more unique flavour that could be used or not on a game by game basis, and I felt that having money change hands was a bit vanilla. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, it’s just something that I was trying to avoid.
I’m not really trying to ‘fix’ anything, just try some new stuff. I’m going to discuss using some of my ideas with my group, but to be honest, they probably won’t want to use them all.
RE: Destroyers for Bases
Always a pleasure to get a reply from you, allow me to attempt to answer your questions.
1. The costs of the in game units mentioned for the deal; destroyers, and air/naval bases, and their abilities, does reflect the deal about as well as can be expected for a board game. They are relatively cheap to produce, destroyers take one turn, airbases two and naval bases three. Honestly, the DfB deal wouldn’t be reflected as well as might be hoped, because it isn’t usually a viable option for Germany to prosecute the Battle of the Atlantic anywhere near as intensely as in real life. So the need might not actually be as great as it was in 1940.
The abilities of bases are similar to A&A, but destroyers are important for convoy escorts because even though any surface ship may escort, their value in the convoy raid - which is a special battle similar to strategic bombing - is the same as a battleship so it isn’t efficient to purchase anything more expensive than destroyers.
2. I didn’t make this rule on that assumption alone. I mentioned that it was a raw deal more to suggest that Britain had no choice, not they were totally shafted, but sometimes I don’t word my thoughts clearly. As always, your historical insight is greatly appreciated, and I agree that the DfB deal itself was more important than any exchange of assets, for the reasons you mentioned. The idea that Britain had been done over was more to do with the fact that at the time there was a comparison of the DfB deal drawn between the USSR and Finland’s relationship by John Colville, and the RN’s disgust at the state of the Destroyers, on top of the work required to make them useful. Do I think it was worth it though? Absolutely.
As I see it, back then, the bases part was a loss of British sovereignty, but the fact that Britain was seen to be ‘begging for scraps’ (my own wording), when it is supposed to be the pre-eminent world power, is a serious loss of face. As you say, Britain didn’t really ‘give up’ anything, and it all came up good in the end, but I personally can’t help but draw a comparison to the Louisiana Purchase.
Destroyers for Bases
This thread is specifically about Global War '36-'45, I’m going to assume that everyone who reads this has read the rules, or at the least, knows that there are some very different rules and mechanics compared to A&A.
When the USA reaches a peace time IPC production of 15, it has the ability to conduct Lend-Lease. This is very useful before the US entry into the war for the Allies, and as it’s production increases, the US attains more and more abilities. One thing that I think might be a good addition to these abilities would be - as the title of this post suggests - the Destroyers for Bases agreement between the US and Britain.
Historically, DfB came roughly six months before Lend-Lease and one year after Cash and Carry. With regards to where this would fit in GW36’s timeline, it might be best to just be a one off thing that can be done any time after US Lend-Lease becomes a possibility, for simplicities sake. Normally, my proposals for House Rules or modifications come out of a desire to utilise the concept of a historical event, rather than it’s simple recreation (see my suggestion for a Straits House Rule).
However, as GW36 has similarly important historical events as a part of its rules (Vichy France, the Soviet-Japanese Border War, Anschluss), I don’t feel that my attempting to include DfB is particularly out of place.
How it would work would be during the Production Phase of the next UK turn after the US can Lend-Lease, the UK player may propose DfB, the US player does not have to accept it, but every subsequent UK turn the UK player may broach the subject again. If the US player accepts DfB, they may offer up to four Destroyers that they already have at sea to the UK, who - if they accept the number of Destroyers offered - places them in the 3rd stage of the production queue, to represent that the Destroyers offered were WWI era, had been rusting merrily away for some time, and all needed a thorough overhaul! The UK player does not have to spend IPC’s to advance the Destroyers along the build queue.
The price for the Destroyers would be that the US gains the ability to produce naval and air bases on the following UK territories:
This would be symbolised by placing a US roundel next to the UK roundel. The US does not gain possession of these territories.
This is a relatively straightforward House Rule that I feel is in keeping with the ideas behind GW36. There isn’t a great deal of loss on either side in game, but historically this was a raw deal for Britain. I’m sure if CWO Marc decides to reply, we’ll all learn something.
RE: Naval Non-Combat Move
I’m glad I cleared your principle concern and I do take your point with regards to world-wide naval redeployments. I think, from a purely historical perspective, I do have to concede that what I am proposing does require a suspension of disbelief. Even today, that sort of operation is incredibly difficult to plan for, let alone execute, (although it is only a concern for the USA at the time of writing).
If I may touch on your examples, my limited understanding is that thanks to the Dogger Bank incident, the British closed the Suez Canal to the Russian fleet, which they were hoping to do anyway. The Brits had recently signed treaties with Japan against Russia, so Dogger Bank just gave them a pretext, which has always made me wonder if the British had something to do with the whole mess. So, on top of the two other major problems you previously mentioned, the required transit distance was increased by thousands of kilometres. Had that not happened, I still think the Japanese would have just as easily and completely annihilated the Russian fleet, but every little helps.
The Great White Fleet and Force Z are good examples too, although Force Z was defeated largely by lack of air cover, not so much to do with logistical challenges, again, as far as I am aware. I agree that this sort of thing is likely done in stages, as you mentioned in your last paragraph, not as one trip only stopping for food and fuel, but I did consider that for the House Rule.
As for the colossal US naval builds and deployments, again I think you are correct. In GW36, to build cruisers and light carriers takes 18 months and battleships and fleet carriers take 2 years, that is, 3 and 4 game rounds respectively, so that aspect doesn’t detract from reality when taking my House Rule into account, IMO.
Ultimately, I do agree that the whole thing is a little hard to swallow, but a ship can travel from Liverpool to Bombay, through the Med, and it still takes 1 year in game time. I think if each nation gets 1 Naval Redeployment per turn, things become much less fantastic. I had to try to balance realism with the in game mechanics to address something that I felt was a bit odd, and it can’t be 100% believable, but we are talking about a board game that has to make it at least feasible for the Axis to win the Second World War, which I believe to be a total impossibility.
RE: Naval Non-Combat Move
Good points, well made, and thank you for your input.
Just to be clear, and hopefully so that I don’t sound condescending, (if I do, I apologise in advance), have you read the rules for Global War 1936-1945? You are right in your observations, and I did appreciate your distinction between tactical and strategic movement, but those differences are covered in the rules for GW36. I’ll try to keep this one brief, and I shall answer assuming that you have not read the rules for GW36 which vary massively from any Axis and Allies, even Global 1940.
Land units: By themselves, land units can move 1 or 2 spaces, I understand any land unit to be a division - or at the very least, a brigade - and moving a whole tank division under its own power is no small task, it may not take 6 months to move 1 armoured division from Scotland to London (2 spaces), but by and large, I find that land units moving under their own power move realistically enough for me.
There is, however, an allowance for, as you have described it, strategic movement.
Very quickly, the map has most land territories with rail tracks crisscrossing all over them, during non-combat, a certain number of land units may move any distance along these tracks, assuming certain conditions are met. The limit depends on where in the world the units are, 4 in Europe, 2 in Russia, the UK and USA, and I think Japan, and 1 in a couple of other places, I’m not 100% on that.
So, an entire Russian armoured division, supplied from the USA to Vladivostok, can move the whole way to Moscow, from Vladivostok, in one Russian non combat move, along the tracks. (This is, in fact, an example used in the rulebook for GW36).
Air units: Basically, there is no provision for strategic movement for air units, and move characteristics are roughly similar to A&A. It actually never occurred to me to make a similar rule for air units, so I suppose, as long as they weren’t flying over enemy AA or aircraft, there’s no reason not to use the same rule, except, for details such as air bases instead of naval, and Areas of Operation as ‘continents’ instead of ‘oceans’ (I do know that the Med is not an ocean, btw :-P) etc…
I could go on, but I promised to try to keep this short.
The rules for Global War 1936-1945 are available as a free PDF. If you haven’t read them, I highly recommend you give them a look, they fix a lot of problems I personally have with A&A. (But obviously I can never be fully satisfied).
I hope that cleared up any issues.
RE: Naval Non-Combat Move
Almost immediately I found mistakes in my own rules…
1. Subs cannot block subs.
2. In fact, no ships can block subs, but Combat Air Patrols can.
3. Closed canals block Redeployment.
4. Closed straits block Redeployment. (I do not actually like the fact that straits can close, and would normally disregard that rule, but I’ve discussed this in another post).
5. Major Powers not at war with any one other Major Power, may use their naval facilities if given permission. e.g. Japan may use a US East Coast facility if only at war with China, as long as the US player gives them permission.
6. In keeping with GW36 rules, any damage to a naval facility negates it’s use for Naval Redeployment.
7. A naval facility must be available in the Naval AO that the fleet begins its move in.
8. Naval Redeployment does not restrict a units ability to move its normal allowance during a non-combat move if Redeployment is unavailable.
Naval Non-Combat Move
This is a long one, so I apologise for that.
So I originally came up with this rule for Global War '36-'45 (which I shall refer to as GW36), but I suppose it could be used for other games, please just bear that in mind if this seems incompatible to any one game you may be thinking of.
In GW36 each game round takes place in a 6 month period, Jan '36, Jul '36, Jan '37 and so on, and a lot of rules reflect that, such as build times for larger ships and facilities.
Â Â One thing that is difficult to accommodate for with this in mind, however, is that sometimes ships take a hugely unrealistic time to travel long distances, such as from Britain to Hong Kong, even going around the Horn of Africa at 10 knots, it doesn’t take 6 months to travel that distance. Trust me on this one.
As war gamers, we tend to think that any one combat move represents one engagement; a tank battle in Russia (Kursk), a naval clash in the Pacific (Midway), one strategic bombing raid (Dresden), D-Day.
Â Â But within the scope of GW36, this just isn’t the case. A land combat move is a 6 month campaign to capture a large segment of a country, or 6 months worth of uneventful naval patrols, skirmishes, hit-and-run attacks and straight up slugfests around a group of tiny islands you’ve never heard of. A bombing raid on a factory is a 6 month campaign to destroy one district of a city that happens to have some factories in it. Does this make sense?
I hope so, because I’m about to get to the point…
Naval Non-Combat should - with all that said - essentially be a Strategic Redeployment to anywhere in the world. No range limit, just do it. Even with some units having a 3 SZ movement range and perhaps one more for starting next to a naval base/shipyard, it takes a ridiculously long time to get from, say, San Francisco to Sydney. Some distances do literally take months, don’t get me wrong, but not six.
All nations should be able to do this, and almost all vessels (I haven’t discussed this with my gaming group (Kampfgruppe Dachboden) in detail yet) but I think that Costal Subs and TB Destroyers maybe shouldn’t, but even then I’m not sure.
There are some details though…
A fleet (or single ship, but I shall say fleet from now on), during the non-combat move, must trace a safe route from its starting SZ to its destination SZ. A Naval Redeployment may not be used through a SZ that has seen combat, as both moves are happening within the same 6 month period, so a lane can’t be cleared for the main force. It also may not travel through a SZ if:
A nation that it is at war with has any combat vessels present, including subs, or has a Combat Air Patrol over the SZ.
Transports do not block Naval Redeployment. These vessels can, and indeed must, be ignored by the transiting fleet, but the fleet may transit through a SZ with enemy transports. A fleet may not conduct a Naval Redeployment into a SZ with any enemy vessels.
One limitation I have thought of, is that a fleet must pass by a SZ with an operational friendly naval facility per Naval AO (Area of Operations), I would, for this rule, count 6 different areas as Naval AO’s. The north and south Atlantic, the Med, the Indian Ocean, and the north and south Pacific. So a fleet going from New York to Bombay would need to pass by a naval base in the South Atlantic or the Med (if heading east) or the north or south Pacific, if heading west. A fleet does not need to visit a facility in the Naval AO it ends the move in.
In GW36, Naval Bases and Shipyards can not be used by a player that they do not own or are not aligned with, so a UK player cannot use a US naval facility. Quite honestly, unless I have misunderstood something, I think that is a daft rule, and for Naval Redeployment to work, this has to be disregarded.
I like this limitation because it allows, for example, Germany to Redeploy within the north Atlantic, but not suddenly have their entire navy show up off of Midway after a Japanese invasion, knowing that the Germans will - basically - teleport. The limitation allows essentially for fuel limitations.
That’s as far as I’ve got with regards to rules. I’m not sure on a few points, but I do think that this House Rule will benefit the game, as it demands more strategic thinking, an enemy fleet might pop up unannounced right next to a vulnerable spot because you can no longer predict where they can go, but as it is a non-combat move, it does allow a response before any actual combat. I feel this also adds a degree of realism.
Â Â It also allows for more subs to be built, as at the moment, subs can block Naval Redeployment, and I feel that subs aren’t used as much as they actually were during the war. One sub, loitering in a SZ next to a naval facility, becomes a huge headache for a fleet that needs to get somewhere fast. And a string of subs or destroyers can prevent an Operation Rheinubung type of operation.
I’m sure someone will find a loophole or a blatant mistake, but that’s the way it goes.
RE: Summer Battle of Britain on 17th June - see CONFLICTING battle reportS
Thanks to wittmann’s inability to accept defeat graciously, I feel that another perspective may be required. I’d like to open, if I may, with a quote;
“You have to be retarded to lose as the Allies!” Winston Churchill.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts, I’ll briefly cover a few peripheries.
Africa: I think it is a given that the CP can never expect victory in Africa, but can hope to frustrate the Allies, and I think that PP did just that. A few decent moves, mixed with a poorly coordinated Allied effort, kept the British, French and Italians chasing a few German infantry around all of Africa until finally destroying the last division near the end of the game. The British even had to pull a couple of units out of the middle east in order to close the trap.
The War at Sea: As previously mentioned, the German fleet might as well have scuttled themselves, however, the two subs in the Atlantic accounted for two cruisers and a transport. Whilst not having a great impact on the war as a whole, it was a mentionable effort. The Ottoman cruisers were sunk for only one Russian lost, and the AH fleet was skilfully kept bottled in the Adriatic for the whole war, only taking part in an unopposed landing in Italy, then being sunk for one battleship and cruiser, this did have the amusing effect of forcing the British to send two cruisers after one transport, to account for mine loss, as the Russian Baltic battleship was sunk by a wonderful snake eyes rolled by PP. But as is usually the case, the Allies had naval supremacy.
America: The game ended before the Doughboys had time to show up. By the games conclusion, a force of 12 inf and 2 art were poised to strike anywhere in the Med. There was talk of where they could have landed, but had they landed anywhere other than Italy, AH would have rolled into Rome before the American transports could have made it all the way to America and then back across the Atlantic again. The Ottomans, having performed well up to this point, would likely have held Constantinople, long enough for an uncontested CP victory.
Now for the Continent…
The CP agreed early on to drive for Moscow and to keep the western powers at arms length, this meant that Germany had to fight on two fronts for the majority of the war, and AH constituted the main thrust. An early feint into Romania by AH saw an uncommitted Russian army swallowed up in a pincer movement and Germany had by turn 3 a major army threatening an advance through Poland and around the massive Russian stack in the Ukraine.
Russia was always on the defensive, and well coordinated movements by Germany and AH meant that a counterattack by Russia would have left the remaining forces vulnerable. By turn 4, Russia had withdrawn to Moscow, to avoid a flanking move by Germany, allowing the CP to stage their joint army in the Ukraine.
Germany was lucky on the western front, but a sneaky, illegal invasion of Switzerland by Italy almost broke through the lines, it was only a timely intervention by AH and vicious counterattack by Germany that kept the western front from collapsing for the CP. Italy did well throughout the war, but failed to seriously impact the AH forces.
Throughout the game, Italy and Britain took advantage of their naval dominance to land troops in AH’s rear and in some territories of the Ottoman Empire, frustrating both AH and the Ottomans, who had to divert troops from other fronts.
France were focused, as might well be expected, in France, there was never any real risk of Paris falling, but there were some serious exchanges in and around Belgium. Germany’s aforementioned luck in battle and a lack of serious British forces prevented France from threatening Germany by themselves.
By the time the game came to a close, the CP were poised to take Moscow, probably by AH turn 7. Britain had provided a good number of troops for the defence of Moscow, but the supply lines for AH were much shorter. IMHO, had we not played with the two house rules things would have been much different, but it was undeniably grim for the Allies by the French/British turn 5, where the game was called.
RE: WW2 movies, the most/least accurate.
You are correct, Sink the Bismarck is not accurate by any stretch and re-reading my previous post I can see that I made it appear that I though it is.
What I should have said is the first bit about Tora! Tora! Tora! Then that my favourite not accurate WW2 film is STB.
Apologises for the mistake and thanks for pointing it out.
RE: WW2 movies, the most/least accurate.
Who really captured those Enigma machines?
There were numerous instances of Enigma machines, parts and codebooks being captured by Allied forces all through and even before WW2, the first ever case being a German (Hans Thilo Schmidt, who’s brother was a General in the Enigma program) selling cyphers to French intelligence from 1931 to 1943. Before anyone says something about him being a hero against tyranny and fascism, he did it for money so he could cheat on his wife, isn’t History great?
The most notable and popularised event was HMS Bulldog capturing U-110’s machine and books without the German crew ever finding out (which was the real achievement) but there were many other courageous and disastrous occasions. In late October '42 Lieutenant Fasson and Able Seaman Colin Grazier of HMS Petard died inside U-559 after retrieved codebooks. (The seacocks having being opened by the crew when abandoning ship, who were ultimately gunned down by Petards Captain when in the water :oops:).
In truth, no one event or person was responsible for the Enigma capture, as I said, there were many events that I could go on about, but I’d be typing all day.
On that note and in response to the actual theme of this post, as enjoyable as it is, the film with historical inaccuracies that bothers me the most is The Imitation Game because it actually doesn’t do everyone involved justice, closely followed by Pearl Harbour, which I do not enjoy.
My favourite and one of the most accurate being Tora! Tora! Tora! Then probably Sink the Bismarck!
The Urals and other obstacles.
I’ll keep this one quick.
Does anyone have House Rules for the Urals or any other mountain ranges/marshes/deserts etc…? I’m sure I’m not the only person who considers the vast expanse of the USSR and China a bit broken, considering any unit can walk from the Soviet Far East to the Ukraine without having to pass any natural obstacles.
I know that it takes considerable time, but if Japan breaks out (that is, kill all opposing Soviet forces) into the eastern USSR, there’s pretty much nothing the Soviet player can do, so long as the German player is any sort of competent.
RE: Looking for G40 players in Houston TX and on Tabletop Simulator
I myself have been looking for someone to play on TS as the community for A&A in and around Manchester is threadbare when compared to other places in the UK.
If you fancy it, I’d be very interested in an online game. I realise there is a significant time difference, but if you’re game, I’m sure we can work something out.
RE: Aletrnative Strait Rules
During the Channel Dash, the German battleships were able to sail through because they had air cover. A possible rule could be that if you move through a bottleneck like a strait or channel, both during combat and non combat move, the other player may scramble planes to intercept you, even if you dont stop in that seazone. And of course, your fighters can escort your ships, like fighters can escort Bombers during SBR. Another rule could be to borrow the mine rule from A&A 1914, that each ship that move into a seazone with a port, or in our case a strait or channel, must roll a minefield dice to every ship, and a 2 or less is a hit. Just an idea to keep it simple.
The Denmark strait is a difficult case, too wide to count as a canal, but more narrow than the English Channel and Gibraltar. I would like to keep it simple, and say its a strait you can sail through, but somebody may scramble planes if you do.
I see what you are driving at, but I think we have different ideas for the rule I am suggesting. My main aim is just to change the strait rules by leaning towards realism but not necessarily being totally realistic. Your point about guns not being able to cover the whole of the Straits of Gibraltar or Denmark is true, but the main point of my proposed rule is just to change the way Straits are utilised in the game. I tried to combine a couple of rules and tried to keep things simple just to change how ships transit occupied straits, like the A&A14 mine rule, but with more of a streamlined approach.
Your idea about scrambling is interesting, but you said that you want to keep things simple, it sounds like you are suggesting combining a combat and non combat move for a Channel Dash kind of operation. Was that what you meant? Or were you suggesting it could be done in either the combat or the non combat move? it seems like this is something that could be looked into, but beyond the scope of what I’m looking to achieve.
It would be very difficult to model rare situations and special cases like this in a simple game like A&A, without a lot of complex special rules, like the Vichy rules or special China rules. And I hate special rules that make the game a scripted simulation and historical correct reenactment, and not the free game it was ment to be.
When I mentioned Blucher, it was more of a case in point than a; ‘Wouldn’t it be cool if we could recreate such-and-such a battle…’ kind of deal. It could be argued that that is what it sounded like I was trying to say, but what I meant was more; 'Wouldn’t it be cool if we could have battles like the Battle of Drobak Sound, instead of; ‘Let’s recreate the Battle of Drobak Sound’. I realise that I may have misworded my intention in my earlier post, so thanks for pointing that out.
RE: Aletrnative Strait Rules
I did actually mention the Channel Dash towards the end of the post, but thanks for the addition, the battle I was talking about was also in WW2 on April 9th 1940 as part of Operation: Weserubung. The Kriegsmarine tried to slip a few cruisers and minesweepers with some embarked infantry up the Oslofjord to capture the Norwegian government and King Haakon VII but the shore cannons and torpedo tubes sank the Blucher and the remaining ships turned around, fearing mines.
Aletrnative Strait Rules
So I’ve been thinking about how straits are used in A&A, specifically in G40 but I guess this is applicable to most other variants as well, the rule that whomever holds the key territory adjacent to a strait (that is, in game, the border between two sea zones), has total control over said strait. In G40, whenever a nation holds a key territory, such as Gibraltar for sea zones 91 & 92, that strait becomes instantly inaccessible to the opposing side acting as a physical barrier that does not allow passage.
Now as a game mechanic I have no objection to it, it’s straightforward and functional, but it isn’t very realistic. Straits aren’t the same as canals obviously and so can’t actually be closed like there is a huge chain across the sea zone borders, a la the Battle of the Blackwater. I propose that even when a strait is controlled, enemy vessels - both surface and sub surface - should be allowed to cross but with an inherent risk.
I think it would be more engaging and entertaining to have shore defences along the straight that enemy ships have to run the risk of engaging if they brave a strait transit.
There is some historical precedence for anyone who is interested, at the Battle of Drobak Sound, a 100 year old naval battery in the Fjords on the approach to Oslo, using 50 year old Austrian-Hungarian weaponry and manned by pensioners and raw recruits sank the Heavy Cruiser Blucher.
I think it would be a better experience to have this sort of possible engagement in A&A. It would add an element of risk whilst still keeping certain territories such as Denmark important enough to occupy. So before I ramble on any more, I’ll bullet point this and make it clearer.
Straits no longer immediately stop surface vessels from passing through, the sea zones now act like all others.
If a controlling territory is occupied by at least one infantry unit, the controlling territories defences are then manned.
Shore defences cannot be destroyed or bought. They are only found in territories that command straits.
Ships that attempt to pass through straits in a non combat movement are attacked, shore defences are NOT utilised in combat movements and cannot be used in land battles or amphibious invasions.
For every ship that passes the strait, such as from Sea Zone 112 to 113 the defender rolls 1 at 3, example: 3 Transports and 2 Destroyers = 5 rolls. Every hit is the same as in a combat movement and the hits must be distributed by the player who controls the fleet.
For every sub that passes the strait, the defender rolls 1 at 1. Every hit is the same as in a combat movement and the hits must be distributed by the player who controls the fleet.
The difference in the rolls is because surface ships have more defences to worry about, cannons, torpedo’s and mines, not to mention searchlights, RADAR and other range finding equipment. Subs have to deal with mines and sub nets, but are much harder to detect and so the defences are more passive, giving them a greater chance of passing unmolested.
I thought about making attacks against ships 1 at 4, but that would make the risk of damage too great and the prospect too unappealing, as such, 1 at 2 is a bit too low to make holding a strait worth the effort. With subs, I wanted to make the risk marginal so as to keep it a viable option should running the gauntlet with ships be too much of a risk.
It occurs to me as I write this that shore defences could be used in the English Channel, for a sort of Channel Dash recreation, but I thought that might break the game a little, but of course the option of where and how shore defences are used are up to the players.
Again, I don’t have a problem with the current rule, I’m just looking for a way to spice up the game and leave more options on the table. I actually have another house rule in mind that this one works quite well with but that’s for another post.
As always, comments and criticism are welcome.
One final and only slightly unrelated note; I highly recommend watching The Kings Choice (my inspiration for this house rule) if you get the chance.
RE: A change of pace: Vichy France.
I’m not sure tbh, that’s the sticking point of these new rules, would anybody want to use them? Opting for one side just allows the other to negate it, so there needs to be a way to make it fair on the French player whatever decision they make.
Perhaps if there were a couple of additional NO’s for Free France giving Frank the chance to build more than one or two infantry a turn. This is the main reason I put this idea forward, unless there is some new rule to allow an active French player there isn’t any point in having the pieces for them in the first place. Perhaps doing what you said and combining the minor nations would work, but France was kind of a wild card during WW2 so I thought it would be good to recreate that.
I admit that this idea is far from fool proof, maybe I’m just a dreamer.
RE: Steam Simulator
I see what you’re going for, a table that has a fog of war sort of deal right? It’s possible but not at this sort of level on the game that I am talking about, it is essentially just an A&A G40 2nd Ed board that everyone can see as if playing IRL. The whole point is for people to play board games with people online as if they are all in the same room. There are ways to create a sort of Fog of War in the editor tools but it might take a while and would be fiddly.
It would be entirely possible for each side to have their own table completely and the only contact with the enemy would be by Skype or something similar, where only your pieces are on your board but this would rely heavily on an honour system as there would be no way to see the other sides table. If you trust your opponent it could work. For example on your previous move a recon plane spotted three transports in the English Channel so on your combat move you may say something like; ‘I’m going to move a submarine into sea zone 110’ hoping for an easy kill. But your opponent could just move a trio of destroyers in that you know they bought but have no idea of their location and then say; ‘I’m scrambling two fighters from England’.
I’m sure it would be possible to do it how you describe:
‘Ideally, it would be the software that would show you only what you know and would keep an accurate tally of the board.’
But that isn’t really possible as far as I am aware on the software that YG is asking about…
RE: A change of pace: Vichy France.
You’re welcome, thank you for yours.
Thanks for clearing it up, I follow what you mean now and I am even more on board. Again I have some points that I have thought of…
I hear what you are saying that the Axis do not plunder Paris of France’s IPC’s the first time it falls, as it gives France a jumping off point on their first turn, but I think that that may take a significant chunk of the momentum out of the German player’s second and third turns and I feel it may - accidentally - provide an slightly unfair balance shift in the early Axis game.
I think if I were to use your Free France rules, I would keep the capture of French IPC’s in to balance out the fact that France can now actually have a more significant role.
Admittedly it is a small role, but it is a much more considerable contribution, proportionately, on the part of the French. I think if you keep the capture of the French IPC’s in it gives the French a longer start up time to get involved in the war which will do no harm in the early game, but as it progresses, the addition of a couple of French Destroyers to an American/ANZAC fleet or a half dozen infantry assisting in the defence of France after an American liberation could make all the difference. Which, incidentally, I think is historically accurate, because of the indecision and differences of opinion between the French people.
I follow and agree with everything else and again, thanks for taking the time to explain it to me, I have thought about what you said in your first post about placement areas and units and have thought of a few more points…
For FWA, there are three sea zones to choose from; 82, 83 and 87, but as 82 is used by FEA, and 87 is next to 88 (which I will get to momentarily) I would suggest SZ 83 for naval deployment from FWA. But of course you could even say that it is possible to use all three, which would allow for faster deployment of a more significant force, though it may take time to muster the IPC’s.
There is also French Guiana to consider. Would you also allow deployment there? It isn’t in a strategically critical location, but I think it should be an option anyway as it falls under your rules as an original French territory, which also brings sea zone 88 into play as that is the one adjacent to FG. I’m assuming that this may have been an oversight, as it took me a while to find New Hebrides because I had forgotten it existed.
Finally, thinking about the options for units that may be deployed, there were Free French, Polish etc… airmen flying in the RAF and elsewhere and I believe some even flew their own planes to the UK and perhaps other places. At any rate, there was a significant amount of air forces manned by Free Peoples, do you think that fighters may be an option, with this in mind? Perhaps they could only be produced in the UK as they were using British planes?
I’m glad you like it and thanks for adding to it, I see what you mean, it seems a little uneven if only playing as France. But after taamvan brought his rules in to play for Free France it got me thinking that perhaps there could be a combination of his and my rules, so that if the French player decides either way, they have a more purposeful and engaging experience.
The main reason I brought my rules in was to get the French pieces on the board and it’s the same for taamvan I believe, now I see how if, without either of our rules (Vichy/Free France) it would be pointless to play as France alone because - as you rightly point out - there wouldn’t be anything for the French player to do by themselves. So when you suggested that Carl play as Free France/China/ANZAC if he decides to join the Allies, or Vichy France/Italy if he decides Axis, that made sense to me, but I’m not sure if you are including the rules taamvan and I have been discussing. (And also the rules that Arthur Bomber Harris told me about).
If you take the rules taamvan and I have mentioned and I may borrow your demonstration I feel it may make the game more enjoyable for someone to play as France alone (Free or Vichy) as I will now try to explain:
Alice, Bob, Carl, David, Elise and Frank set up a game and divide as follows:
Alice – US/China
Bob – UK/ANZAC
Carl – USSR
David – Germany/Italy
Elise – Japan
Frank – France
Now Frank at the start is with the Allies, but for the purposes of demonstration I have kept him separate as both sides are aware of his impending decision.
Turn one goes by for the first 5 nations and it’s fairly typical except that the Axis want Frank on their side and so apart from France and Normandy not a single French territory is taken by David or Elise, but they both still conduct a successful G1/J1. To Frank, who is now in a strong position compared to normally, he could choose to remain Allied on his turn, thus evoking the Free France rules or not and go Vichy, because he would have a healthy industrial capacity, some forces to work with and not an insignificant amount of strategic options. (Syria, FIC etc…).
The question becomes what do the UK/Italy do? The decisions by either could make the decision for Frank and like you said it depends on Franks motivation but that’s why I like these rules as it adds suspense and a level of uncertainty that isn’t usually prevalent in A&A.
To be honest it is all a bit muddled up right now and it’s not totally clear to me how this might play out or even work, but I still think that if done correctly it could bring something new and interesting to the table.
RE: Steam Simulator
It sounds like this may be just what you’re looking for.
Also, I like the last thing you mentioned, about not being able to see the enemies pieces on the board as having two separate tables is obviously not a problem, not that dissimilar to the old classic Battleship, but I was wondering how that would work, say, in 1940 Global 2nd Ed. Would you have a new turn sequence where just before Combat Movement there is a Recon Move/Mission/Thing? And would that require a specific unit conducting the recon, like using a fighter/tactical bomber?