Most Holy,
Cool ideas. Thanks.
Most Holy,
Cool ideas. Thanks.
“either that or Chinese P-40 and Chinese artillery.”
I’m with Yavid on those two. Also, I’d like marines, paratroops, and transport planes in all nations’ colors. Currently, I use a bomber with a blue poker chip under it to represent a transport plane, and a regular infantry with a blue poker chip to represent a paratroop. I use infantry with green poker chips for marines.
Plastic major and minor factories.
An anchor on a stand for naval bases, and maybe a windsock on a stand for air bases. I just want something that doesn’t take up a lot of valuable real estate on small crowded territories, and doesn’t get buried under the other units, so you can still see it.
Maybe I should have started a new topic for this, but it’s kind of related.
It seems to me that you would rarely want more than 2 AA guns in a given territory, unless maybe it is your capitol, and the other side has a large number of bombers (like, at least 9-10) within striking distance. Wouldn’t it be better to scatter them around one per territory? Particularly, say, the British moving AA guns up into China, since the Japanese are so dependant on their aircraft for offensive punch. Or maybe the Russians building a few and scattering them along the retreat path to Moscow and Leningrad. In the few games I’ve played, the Germans have been deterred from sending any aircraft against Paris on turn 1 by that single AA gun. Granted, they also wanted to maximize the damage to the Royal Navy, but without that AA gun they probably would have sent at least one or two aircraft. Has anyone tried spamming AA guns around the map? If so, was it effective?
Another possibility, if you don’t like bids, is to allow some units to be moved before play begins. Maybe each player rolls one die to determine how many units he can move (1 turn’s movement allowance - not a combat move - just repositioning) after the board is set up, but before play begins.
Yeah, it would be a bit tedious. I have an old game in my closet called Air and Armor, which I haven’t played in probably 20 years. It has a combat system where the dice won’t really decide the winner or loser in a battle, if one side has a large firepower advantage. In such a case, the dice will only determine the severity of the drubbing. If both sides are more or less evenly matched, neither side is likely to take overwhelming losses. I’ll dig it out and look at it when I get home. I don’t think it could really be converted to A&A, but it might give me some ideas.
Another option I’ve heard about, but never tried, is that all units need a 1 to hit, but they get a number of rolls equal to their attack/defense value. For instance, when attacking, infantry would roll one die each, unless paired with an artillery, in which case it would roll two dice. Tanks would roll 3 dice, bombers and battleships would roll 4 dice, etc.
The only issue is that, occasionally, you could end up with a single bomber or battleship killing 4 units. Unless, of course, you say that no unit can have more than one hit produce a casualty in each round. But that would require you to roll each unit one at a time, in order to keep track, which could be tedious in large battles. I suppose you could solve this by using different colored dice. For instance, if you have 3 tanks attacking, you could roll 3 red dice, 3 blue dice, and 3 white dice. But if you roll three 1’s with the red dice, and no 1’s with the blue and white dice, you only score one hit.
I don’t know if this would be useful or not, but I have an old copy of 5th edition World in Flames, and it occurred to me once in a drunken stupor that it could be converted to A&A, since they seemed to be similarly scaled. I started with the Sept. 1939 scenario, and then allowed for likely builds and combat losses through May/June 1940. I took the average printed combat power of units of each type for each nation to get a multiplier, which I then applied to the actual number of units. This more or less accounts for differences in quality, since in A&A, infantry is infantry, regardless of whether it represents Chinese conscripts or the German SS. For naval units, I used the research mentioned in my previous posts. Fighters and tac bombers include naval air. If you are not using an optional rule for paratroops, marines, or air transports, just convert them to regular infantry. This might have to be scaled down if you don’t want cluttered maps, but I’ve given the raw numbers below. So, if you trust the historical research of Australian Design Group:
France:
22 infantry, 1 mech, 4 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 2 subs, 1 transport
Germany:
36 infantry, 4 mech, 1 para, 8 artillery, 9 tanks, 11 fighters, 6 tacs, 2 bombers, 1 air transport, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 6 subs, 2 transports
Italy:
11 infantry, 1 mech, 5 artillery, 2 tanks, 4 fighters, 4 tacs, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 4 subs, 2 transports
Japan:
32 infantry, 1 mech, 1 marine, 7 artillery, 1 tank, 10 fighters, 9 tacs, 1 bomber, 1 air transport, 3 battleships, 4 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 3 carriers, 2 subs, 4 transports
China:
22 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter
USSR:
19 infantry, 2 mech, 1 para, 4 artillery, 6 tanks, 4 fighters, 3 tacs, 1 air transport, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 5 subs, 1 transport
Commonwealth (includes both maps plus ANZAC)
24 infantry, 2 mech, 1 para, 4 artillery, 2 tanks, 11 fighters, 5 tacs, 1 bomber, 4 battleships, 7 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 2 carriers, 2 subs, 5 transports
USA:
7 infantry, 1 mech, 1 marine, 2 artillery, 1 tank, 7 fighters, 6 tacs, 1 air transport, 4 battleships, 4 cruisers, 7 destroyers, 2 carriers, 3 subs, 4 transports
Optional rules:
Air transports: // Cost 6 / Move 4 / Attack 0 / Defense 0 // Can airlift one infantry or para during non-combat movement. Can airdrop one para during combat movement. If AA guns are present, must first survive AA fire, or both the air transport and para are lost.
Paratroops: // Cost 5 / Move 1 / Attack 1 (2) / Defense 2 // Can be dropped on enemy territory during combat movement by an air transport. Attack with a 2 on the first round of combat, and revert to an attack of 1 if the combat lasts more than one round.
Marines: // Cost 5 / Move 1 / Attack 1 (2) / Defense 2 // Function as regular infantry in all ways, except they attack with a 2 during amphibious landings. Unlike paratroops, they retain this attack value until the amphibious combat is complete.
Amphibious landings: All land units except marines attack with a 1 during the first round of combat during an amphibious landing. Tanks cannot be paired with tac bombers during the first round to give them their bonus, but fighters can. Artillery cannot raise the attack value of infantry or marines during the first round of combat. During subsequent rounds, artillery can pair with marines to raise the marine’s attack to 3.
Hello again, everyone,
Sorry I had to post and run Friday, without any follow-up. So here are a few notes/observations/ideas. If you want to stick with the ratios for BBs that Larry is using, you’d go with 1-5, instead of 1-4. I prefer 1-4 because BBs in most navies operated in 2-ship divisions, with two or more divisions to a squadron. Also, it makes the British fleet large and intimidating, and less likely to be wiped out in a single turn, which goes along with wanting a more historically accurate feel. This can be balanced somewhat by maybe beefing up the Luftwaffe a bit, if that can be justified by a combination of historical numbers cross-referenced with historical quality. Also, by rounding .5 or greater up, the Italians and the Japanese get an extra BB each.
By using historical numbers, the US fleet also gets larger, but it is out of play for the first few turns anyway. Maybe this can be mitigated by a “Pearl Harbor” rule of some sort. Perhaps if Japan declares war on the US, during the first turn US AAA fire is rolled simultaneous with other units, instead of destroying planes before they can get a shot off. Also, on the first round of dice rolling, all US units defend with a 1, reverting to their normal defense values on any subsequent rounds.
Using a historically sized French fleet will require a Vichy rule of some sort. I would say something like the following: Immediately upon the fall of Paris to the Axis, all French naval units in the Mediterranean are converted to Vichy. They neither move, attack, nor block movement of either side. Any surviving French land or air units in Normandy or Southern France are reduced to a single infantry in S. France. German control markers are placed on S. France, Normandy, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Syria. French land units in these areas cannot move or attack. Germany receives all income from these areas. All other French territories and units become Free French, and income from these areas goes into the Free French pool. Free French units can be built at British Factories using this money.
If a Vichy area is attacked by the Allies, roll a die. On a roll of 1-3, all land units in the area and naval units in adjacent sea zones become Free French. On a roll of 4-5, the units surrender and disband/scuttle themselves, and are removed from the map. On a roll of 6, they join the Axis, and are replaced with equivalent German units. If the Axis attack any of these areas, the Vichy treaty is broken, and ALL Vichy areas become Free French, unless captured. If a land territory is captured by the Axis, roll a die for any adjacent naval units. On a roll of 1-3, they escape from port and become Free French. On a roll of 4-5, they are scuttled and removed from play. On a roll of 6, they are captured, and replaced with the equivalent German unit.
I think I like the idea of defenders being allowed to retreat. Maybe at the beginning of each round of combat, starting with the second round, the defender can declare he is going to try to retreat any or all of his units. Any units retreating cannot fire in that round of combat, but any units he left behind as a rear guard can still fire. Casualties can be taken from the rear guard first, but if the attacker gets more hits than there are rear guard units, they must be taken from the retreating units. Now, the net effect will be that fewer units will die each turn. Would this need to be balanced by making units more expensive, in order to keep the map from becoming massively cluttered?
When AA40 first came out, I actually did quite a bit of research on the navies. If you want something pretty close to historically accurate, here are the actual numbers:
BB = battleship (includes battlecruisers)
CA = heavy cruiser
CL = light cruiser
DD = destroyer
CV = carrier
SS = sub
Britain
Active at start: 16 x BB, 18 x CA, 46 x CL, 202 x DD, 6 x CV, 78 x SS
Nearly completed: 1 x BB, 6 x CL, 65 x DD (includes lend-lease), 2 x CV, 13 x SS
Partially built: 5 x BB, 2 x CL, 5 x CV
United States
Active at start: 15 x BB, 18 x CA, 19 x CL, 118 x DD, 7 x CV, 112 x SS
Nearly completed: 2 x BB, 15 x DD
Partially built: 4 x BB, 1 x CV
France
Active at start: 8 x BB, 7 x CA, 11 x CL, 70 x DD, 76 x SS
Nearly completed: 1 x BB
Partially built: 1 x BB
USSR
Active at start: 3 x BB (old and slow, but still dangerous to cruisers and smaller), 4 x CA, 2 x CL, 68 x DD, 218 x SS
Nearly completed: 1 x BB
Partially built: 1 x BB, 1 x CA
Germany
Active at start: 4 x BB, 7 x CA, 6 x CL, 26 x DD, 240 x SS
Nearly completed: 16 x DD, 240 x SS
Partially built: 2 x CA, 1 x CV
Netherlands
5 x CL, 10-12 x DD
Japan
Active at start: 10 x BB, 18 x CA, 20 x CL, 108 x DD, 8 x CV, 68 x SS
Nearly completed: 2 x BB, 15 x DD, 3 x CV
Partially built: 2 x CL, 3 x CV
Italy
Active at start: 6 x BB, 9 x CA, 13 x CL, 59 x DD 146 x SS
Nearly completed: 0
Partially built: 1 x BB, 4 x CL, 2 x CV
ANZAC
Active at start: 3 x CA, 3 x CL, 12 x DD
Now, figuring out what formula to use to convert to A&A ratios is tricky, but I like:
BB = 1-4
CA/CL = 1-10
DD = 1-18
CV = 1-3
SS = 1-40
So, at start, it would look like this (rounding fractions of .5 up):
Britain: 4 x BB, 6 x CA, 11 x DD, 2 x CV, 2 x SS
USA: 4 x BB, 4 x CA, 7 x DD, 2 x CV, 3 x SS
France: 2 x BB, 2 x CA, 4 x DD, 2 x SS
USSR: 1 x BB, 1 x CA, 4 x DD, 5 x SS (can have 2xDD and 2 x SS trapped in Black Sea for balance)
Germany: 1 x BB, 1 x CA, 1 x DD, 6 x SS
Netherlands: 1 x DD (at Java)
Italy: 2 x BB, 2 x CA, 3 x DD, 4 x SS
ANZAC: 1 x CA, 1 x DD
Japan: 3 x BB, 4 x CA, 6 x DD, 3 x CV, 2 x SS
I’ve toyed with this idea somewhat, but only in my head. If you want more realism, air power by itself should not be able to win land battles. It should be able to shift the odds, sometimes dramatically, but winning should require sizeable ground forces.
What would happen if all battles – land, air, sea – were limited to three rounds of combat? Maybe with a Blitzkrieg rule: If you wipe out the defending forces in one round, tanks and mechs can move and attack an additional territory, if they did not move two spaces to get to the initial battle. Any aircraft that participated in the initial attack could, if they had the remaining movement, participate in the first round of combat of the new battle. This would mean overall casualties during a turn would not be as high, which would require another rule to slow down production. Maybe double (or triple?) the cost of all units, and make the more expensive and powerful units take more than one turn to build. Infantry, subs, destroyers, AA guns, and transports can be built in one turn, like they are now. Tanks, mechs, artillery, fighters, tacs, cruisers, bombers, and minor ICs take two turns. Battleships, major ICs, and carriers – 3 turns.
Of course, it would be more complicated, require a lot of extra bookkeeping, and a typical game would take longer to play. And the joy of Axis & Allies is that you can play it while inebriated.
Dude, a Freudian psychologist could do a doctoral thesis on your writing style :-D
The link below mostly deals with the effectiveness of Japanese torpedoes. Â But the opening paragraphs have a description of the pre-war Japanese strategy, before they decided to do Pearl Harbor. Â It’s interesting reading.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm
Edit: Sorry. Looking at that article again, it doesn’t give as much detail about the big picture strategy as I remembered. I was confusing it with another article. But the gist of their original strategy was to grab the Philippines and wait for the inevitable American counter-attack. Subs and aircraft carriers were seen as harassment units to whittle down the US as much as possible before the surface units engaged. From there, the article in the link above covers how the surface engagement was supposed to go.
The background on the torpedoes was that the Japanese had the best on the planet. Every other navy’s torpedoes had a range of 3-8 miles, depending on the speed setting. The Japanese Type-93 had a range of about 22 miles on slow setting (which was as fast as the fast setting on most other torpedoes), and a range of about 11 miles on fast setting (which was REALLY fast – like 52 knots or so). Using compressed oxygen instead of compressed air as an oxidizer for the fuel also caused them to have a less visible wake. To top it all off, they also had a heavier warhead than other torpedoes. The Japanese successfully kept the existence of this weapon secret until several months into the war, and built a lot of their naval strategy around it.
Hmm. Good point, knp. I’m beginning to see why Larry chose the start point he did :-P
Gargantua, I’m beginning to like your idea of a double impulse for Germany. It would probably be simpler. I have a copy of the old Xeno rules, with the regular sized map and the giant blown-up version. But I hadn’t looked at the rule book in years.
Actually, the more I think about it, there probably wouldn’t be much to gain (in the way of game-play fun) with a Sept. '39 start. I was originally thinking it would give the Axis a couple of extra turns to shape the battlefield before the US and USSR got into it, in exchange for having to do some extra conquest. It might also give the French player more options than just getting punched in the groin and being taken out before he can make a single decision.
I think Summer of '42 would be the simplest start point, but it seems so late in the war somehow. At that point all the decisions that might have made a difference have already been made, and fate has locked everyone in to repeating the historical outcome. I know the games don’t actually go that way. It’s just a mental hang-up for me :-)
Maybe I’ll rethink an idea I had for a Summer of '41 scenario starting with Germany massed on the Soviet border for Barbarossa. Since a single turn could represent 6 months, Barbarossa could be early on turn 1, and Pearl Harbor could happen right at the end. That would the need for US entry rules, and most of the neutrals who were historically dragged in would already be in play.
Hmm. So you’d actually beef up the forces in Western Germany? I was thinking the opposite - that all their offensive forces would be on the Polish border, with W. Germany stripped down to only 2-5 infantry and some AA. Also, the overall size of everyone’s starting forces would be smaller, to represent the reservists who were still in the stages of being called up, equipped, given refresher training, and integrating new draftees to bring them up to strength. Also to represent the completion of units that were already paid for and under contruction, but finished between Sept. 1939 and May/June 1940.
For the Germans, I was thinking they’d be minus (in relation to Alpha+3): 1 tank, 6-8 infantry, 3 tactical aircraft (either 1 fighter and 2 tac bombers, or 2 fighters and 1 tac bomber), 1 battleship, 1 artillery, and 1 mech. These would all be taken from the forces in Germany, W. Germany, and S. Germany. All of these except 2 infantry and 1 of the tactical aircraft would be received as “free” reinforcements at the end of turn 1.
Now I suppose you could say the Germans may have had a plan to whack France first, and then go for Poland, or maybe try to take them both at once. I’m not sure how realistic that would be, but meh. What the heck. If you wanted to go this route, you could let the Germans shift their initial land and air units between Germany, W. Germany, and S. Germany any way they want.
For France, I’d start them off with only 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tac bomber, and 1 AA in France; 1 infantry and 1 artillery in Normandy, and 1 infantry and 1 artillery in S. France. They’d have no units in the UK, of course, and British would have no units on the continent. The French would receive 1 artillery and 3 infantry as free reinforcements at the end of turn 1, (and maybe they’d start in Holland/Belgium). The British starting forces would be the same as A+3 minus the aforementioned Expeditionary Force.
Starting the game in May 1940 eliminates the need for rules to steer the game in a more or less historical direction for the opening moves. And, while deviating from the historical decisions is the whole point of playing games like this (to “prove” you are a better strategist than the people who had to do it for real :-D ), the players’ decisions should be somewhat constrained by the same problems and dilemmas that existed at the time.
To that end, what rules would you use for a Sept. 1939 start date? The problems that come to mind are: how do you reconcile the fact that Germany would have to conquer Poland, Norway, Denmark, and Holland/Belgium before they could even get to their starting point in May 1940? This would probably require at least two turns of combat, construction of new units, and staging. While Germany is dealing with Poland, how do you stop France and England from coming in the back door? History has derided them for the overly cautious “Phony War†they pursued, only invading a few miles into Germany when they could have gone much deeper, possibly crippling the German war effort early. So, it should be possible for France and Britain go on the offensive early, but from a game play perspective, it wouldn’t be fun for them to be able to deliver a knock-out punch right away.
Ideas I’ve had floating in my head:
Have a large chunk of the German, British, and French militaries start as reservists who have not yet been mobilized. They appear in the “place new units†phase on turn 1 (or possibly split between turn 1 and turn 2?). They cost nothing, and are in addition to any units purchased. This might solve the problem of the Germans having to get large numbers of infantry and artillery from Poland all the way to the French, Danish, Dutch-Belgian border after Poland falls. It also keeps the French and British from walking right in while Germany is occupied in the East, since their starting armies will be smaller. But how much smaller should they be in order to make an invasion of Germany iffy, but still possible? This also brings us to the next issue:
How do you get the British player to actually deploy the Expeditionary Force instead of just holding it on the home islands to fend off Sea Lion? Maybe a National Objective of some sort? Perhaps: British Expeditionary Force (1 tank, 1 mech, 1 artillery, 1 infantry, and 1 fighter) appears during “place new units†phase of turn one. These units can be placed together or separately in England, Scotland, Holland/Belgium, France, and/or Normandy/Bordeaux. Germany receives 25 IPCs on turn one, and another 25 IPCs on turn 2. This is reduced (but not below 0) by the IPC value of British units present on those turns in Holland/Belgium, France, or Normandy/Bordeaux.
Other issues:
Starting forces for doomed countries (Use French playing pieces.):
Denmark: 1 infantry
Norway: 1 infantry
Holland/Belgium: 2 infantry
Poland: 5 infantry and 1 fighter in Poland, and 2 infantry in Eastern Poland
Russia can invade Eastern Poland on turn 1 and Finland on turn 3. This will not count as a declaration of war against any other power.
What about the Pacific map? Should Japan start with one less Chinese territory? Maybe Kwangsi?
Also, US and Russian declarations of war should be pushed back one turn. Or maybe 2? And should the British and Italians be allowed to go at each other on turn 1?
This obviously needs a lot of work, and a reduction in starting forces for most countries. What other issues am I overlooking?
I think you might want a higher ratio of infantry vs. tanks when going on a long offensive. Germans going after Moscow, for instance. As you approach Moscow, newly built German infantry will take longer to reach the front, so you will be relying on the fodder you started with for multiple battles. You can build mech infantry, of course (this is its primary reason for existing), but you will only be able to soak up 3/4 of the hits for the same price. And the inverse is also true. The Russians will be able to crank out the fodder and get it co-located with their valuable units faster as they retreat.
Another possibility:
Both sides have to stay for one complete round of combat. Before dice are rolled for the second round, the defender can declare that he will try to retreat some or all of his units. Those units that are retreating do not get to “shoot” in the second round, but can still be taken as casualties.
Example: Germany attacks with 2 tac bombers, 3 tanks, and 8 infantry against a Russian stack of 7 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, and one fighter. The first round of combat kill 5 Russian infantry and 3 German infantry. The Russian decides to leave his 2 remaining infantry as a rear guard, and tries to retreat the rest of his units. On round two, the German rolls for 5 infantry, 2 tac bombers, and 3 tanks, Getting 4 hits. This destroys the 2 Russian infantry left as a rear guard, plus the 1 artillery and 1 tank that tried to retreat with the fighter. The fighter successfully escapes. The Russian rolls only for the 2 infantry left behind, scoring no hits. He saved the fighter, but by trying to save the tank and artillery, he sacrificed the possibility that they would have killed another German infantry or two.
moralecheck,
“How about 3 marines or 2 marines and 1 of any other unit? Allowing a free marine on every transport seems a bit sneaky.”
Well, my sense of aesthetics wants to allow the marines to always use their special ability, even when there’s only one of them. Besides, if you think about all the combinations that are possible on a single transport, it wouldn’t make any difference to the combat effectiveness. If you have 3 units on a transport, one has to be a marine, and one of the other two has to be either a marine or an infantry, which both have the same attack and defense.
Imperious Leader,
Yeah, that was one of my original ideas. moralecheck explained that his experience has been that it makes them overpowered. I’m not sure it would be, but his idea of allowing marines to “overload” a transport struck me as interesting. It would give marines a unique ability.
LOL. Yeah, let’s pretend interservice rivalry doesn’t exist. (Disclaimer: I’m in the Georgia Army National Guard. But we have a lot of ex-Marines. Yeah. I know. There’s no such thing as and **EX-**Marine.) Anyway, the point of war games is that you can second-guess the historical decisions because you think you can do better. But I digress. In my mind the term “marines” includes rangers, commandoes, and army infantry specifically trained to make amphibious landings.
My apologies also for going off-topic. Paratroops are kind of related, but marines are straying a bit. I’ve created a new topic. :oops: