I’m not sure if it’s bad form to be posting in this thread after February but anyway…

My name is Janus (also known on other parts of the internet as P.d0t)
I got into A&A with the MB version, back in about 1997 or so(?)
However, the biggest chunk of my A&A play experience is/was with the Imp Games expansion “East & West”: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/6441/east-west-global-war-1948

That company seems to have gone defunct (and their forums went down long before that) so I joined the A&A .org forums a while ago – somewhat passively – but have been following the site’s news via Facebook. When the announcement for A&A Online came through on that channel, it rekindled my interest in E&W. As such, I’ve been trying to track down anyone who owns the game or has played it, and have been working on honing strategies for the USSR.

One such strategy can be found here on the forums, which I ran just as a playtest against myself:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/19172/east-west-by-imp-games-soviet-strategy-playtest

If you’re a fan of E&W, please get ahold of me here on the forums/PMs; it would be much appreciated

@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Yeah, it might be that. But right now, the only TGW map is in MapView, right?

FWIW, I was able to dig this out of archive.org, from the Imp Games website; I probably have it saved somewhere, but it was just quicker to dig it out that way. (Obviously not high-res, but was freely available online, when the site was up.)

Not location-specific, but I’m just hoping to get in touch with anyone who owns or has play-experience with this game. I own a copy myself, and am just looking for anyone knowledgeable, who would like to discuss strategies for the game – and possibly play in some electronic format or another.

The official site has long since gone offline, but a bit of info still exists here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/6441/east-west-global-war-1948

Turn Order:
(With the intention of keeping as close to the original turn order, while still slotting in the added countries)

1. USSR
2. a) Italy (and Vichy France)
   b) Germany
3. a) UK (Atlantic)
   b) China (includes India, Dutch, ANZAC, etc.)
4. Japan
5. a) US Pacific
   b) US Atlantic

---

Round Zero / “Impulse”:
Prior to the first full round, the Axis get one round to act. This should be played out in the turn order described above, omitting the Allied turns.

The Axis conduct all phases of their turns during this round, with some very important bonuses added:

• Infantry & Armor: attack power is increased by 2, costs are reduced by 1 IPC
• Fighters & Bombers: attack with 2 dice instead of 1, costs are reduced by 2 IPC
• Naval units: attack power is increased by 1, costs are reduced by half

During this round, Allied units defend as per normal, with one notable exception: since they are not yet at war, AA guns belonging to the USSR and USA do not fire.

Axis Advantage / “Russia Restricted”
On the first round, the USSR and the US (both Atlantic and Pacific) may only conduct the following phases of their turns: Purchase Units, Place Units, Collect Income.

In addition to the bonuses on Round Zero, all three Axis countries gain these benefits:

• all Axis battleships are 2-hit battleships
• all Axis powers have Super Submarine technology
• all Axis powers have Jet Power technology

---

Setup & Territorial Changes:
The original setup for Classic is used, however changes in ownership of a territory also govern changes in the nationality of ALL units listed for that territory (including naval units) with the following exceptions:

• All German naval units are given to Italy (including any newly purchased units)
• All Soviet naval units are given to the UK; the USSR may not produce naval units in this scenario

---

As you can see from the map above, the sea zones are broken down into two sections:

1. those bordering the territories of USSR, Germany, Italy, UK, and US Atlantic – to be used only by the navies and air forces of those countries
2. all other sea zones – to be used by the navies and air forces of China, Japan, and US Pacific

You’ll note that this limitation creates one sea zone in the mid-Atlantic which is effectively impassable; feel free to adjudicate this differently, if you find a change to be helpful.

---

Industrial Complexes / “Victory Cities”:
Add an AA gun and Industrial Complex to the following territories:

• Ukraine SSR
• South Africa
• India
• Australia

No new industrial complexes may be built.

In this scenario, the number of units a complex can produce is limited to the IPC value of the territory in which it is located (including capitols.) As such, you may only purchase a number of units up to the total IPC value of the industrial complexes which you have controlled since the start of your turn. For example: the UK has an industrial complex on their capitol (8 IPCs) as well as in South Africa (2 IPCs) meaning they can purchase a maximum of 10 units on their turn.

Further to this, the number of naval units you may purchase is limited not only to the IPC value of your coastal/island complexes, but also by whether the adjacent sea zones are clear of enemy ships. For example: Since Japan only has an industrial complex in their capitol, if the islands are surrounded by Allied naval units at the start of the Japanese turn, Japan may not purchase any naval units on that turn.

A nation who loses their capitol may continue to collect IPCs from any territories they still control, provided they also still control at least one industrial complex after the Combat Phase of their turn. If a nation controls no industrial complexes after any nation’s Combat Phase, they must surrender their IPCs to the nation whose turn it currently is. They also can no longer collect IPCs, until they regain control of at least one industrial complex.

Victory is achieved when either side controls at least “2 out of 3” Axis and “2 out of 3” Allied starting Industrial Complexes (8 Industrial Complexes in total) at the end of any round of play.

Theatres of War
It is intended that each theatre may be played separately, as their own sort of “mini-game” but they may also be played in concert, and merge together under certain circumstances of victory or defeat. A nation may not attack nor move units into any territory which is not a part of their theatre, until those theatres merge together.

• Atlantic Theatre: UK, Italy, US Atlantic
• European Theatre: USSR, Germany
• Pacific Theatre: China, Japan, US Pacific

If Germany or Italy collects an income of at least 5 IPCs less than their starting income, the Atlantic and European theatres merge at the start of the following round. This also happens if Germany collects an income of at least 10 IPCs more than their starting income.

If Italy or Japan collects an income of at least 10 IPCs more than their starting income, the Atlantic and Pacific theatres merge at the start of the following round. This also happens if Japan collects an income of at least 5 IPCs less than their starting income.

If playing any theatre individually, the Axis country wins if they collect an income of at least 15 IPCs more than their starting income; the Allies win if the Axis country collects no income.

Starting Incomes:

1. USSR - 28 IPCs
2. a) Italy - 12 IPCs
   b) Germany - 21 IPCs
3. a) UK - 18 IPCs
   b) China - 18 IPCs
4. Japan - 15 IPCs
5. a) US Pacific - 18 IPCs
   b) US Atlantic - 17 IPCs

---

Mergers and Restrictions
Whenever the European and Atlantic theatres merge, Germany and Italy combine their cash on hand, and effectively become one nation.

Whenever the Atlantic and Pacific theatres merge, the same happens with the UK and China, as well as with US Atlantic and US Pacific. Additionally, when this merger takes place, the restrictions on naval movement end; the navies of all nations can enter any sea zones on the map.

Unlike most global Axis & Allies games, in this scenario Japan and the USSR may never attack each others’ territories or naval units. However, if the Pacific and European theatres have merged (i.e. all 3 theatres must have merged, for this to happen) the following actions are permitted:

• Soviet units may enter Allied-controlled territories (such as those belonging to China)
• Japan may destroy Soviet units in Allied-controlled territories, on Allied aircraft carriers, or aboard Allied transports.

---

Other Recommended Rules

1. No invading neutrals
2. No technology advancement

I’ve decided to leave out most of the “errata”-type changes I had written up in my earlier draft, since those are mostly down to a matter of taste; generally sticking to the 2nd Edition rules will be perfectly fine. But if anyone is interested, I’ll be happy to add those to the thread.

---

If you have any questions or comments, please post them down below

Tactics: Operation Fishnet (Soviet Pacific Fleet)

For those who know me, I’ve historically mostly played as NATO in E&W. As part of the ongoing refinement of my Soviet strategy, I wanted to come up with some better opening moves for their naval units; here’s what I’ve been looking at just recently:
(red arrows outline spaces that US navies could conceivably reach)

Objectives: To stall US transport capability in the Pacific.

This should be a fairly straightforwardly important goal, for any Soviet player: keeping the US off of your shores (or away from landing support into SE Asia.) It’s difficult to actually attack the US transports (because of their positioning) so instead we want to prevent them from steaming across the ocean, for as long as possible.

Scatter
The purpose of scattering your navy is to make it a less-attractive target for the US nuke. Many times, the Soviet moves in the Pacific involve slamming as much force as possible against another large force. Usually this is a no-win situation; either your remaining force is large enough to warrant dropping the bomb on, or is small enough that it is mopped up by US naval forces, with nary a whimper. Also, keeping subs separate from surface ships will tempt your opponent to split their air power from their naval power.

Block
By positioning the subs between your other ships, and the West US fleet, you’re able to effectively keep those units from using their full movement – unless the enemy attacks both ranks of your defensive line. Again, this is not the worst result, because you’ll have already prevented them from being able to concentrate their forces.
If the Japan SZ fleet attacks the Soviet ships in the Bering Strait, this means that the transport at Okinawa cannot effectively be used to amphibiously assault Kamchatka or East Siberia; the ships at Hawaii are also blocked from providing shore bombardment, and the carrier cannot move in to provide a landing space for supporting fighter aircraft.

Deadzone
As you’ll note on the map, the Marcus Island SZ can potentially be hit by all of the US ships in the area. However, if the US moves heavily into this zone with their surface fleet, they will not be able to keep the Japan SZ well-defended – potentially leaving it open to a counter-attack, with support from Soviet aircraft. If they instead consolidate their navy at Marcus Island, their transports will be far out of position to send reinforcements to SE Asia.
The place where the US can launch the strongest amphibious assault (with both their Japan fleet and Hawaii fleet) is against North Korea. Fortunately, the free Chinese infantry make this a tough nut to crack, and the Soviets should always have units in East Siberia and/or Manchuria, available for a counter-attack. Also, the commitment of US surface ships to such an attack would mean a much weaker naval response, to the Soviet fleets; if the US only commits submarines to Marcus Island, and only aircraft to deal with the Soviet submarines, they risk leaving the West US transport exposed to the Bering Strait ships. In this situation, the US may opt to instead move this transport towards the Panama Canal – both to be out of reach, and to instead assist in moving forces to Europe. In this case, the Soviet fleet will have succeeded at its objective.

Let me know what you think about this opening move
Comments and critiques are always welcome!

Back in the day, I had been reading up on all sorts of A&A stuff: some of the “limited” scenarios (where not all nations were used/played) on thrasher’s A&A site, as well as World at War and its use of an “impulse” turn for the Axis.

I kind of wanted to combine some of those ideas, with a setting earlier than Classic’s “Spring 1942” which Larry Harris described (in a video during the credits of Iron Blitz) as the “high-water mark of the Axis expansion.” My knowledge of WWII kind of suggested that the highest mark prior to that, would be 1941 – specifically when most of France’s colonies were still collaborationist, or had not yet been captured by the British, and when Italy still controlled east Africa.

I can recall sharing this with a friend back in 2007, so this sort of comes after the original Europe and Pacific games, but prior to Global. As you might guess, this kind of shared the mindset that would go on to create that game. Essentially, the game is broken into 3 theatres – one Axis power for each. If that Axis power is either defeated, or achieves their objectives, then their theatre merges with at least one other. (i.e. Italy must be defeated in Africa before the western Allies can start to attack Germany)

For simplicity, I kept the starting unit setup the same, with units changing nationality if their territory also changed. For balance, the Axis were given some early bonuses, and (also for historical reasoning) the USA and USSR both had restrictions in the first round. I also included some further clarification to the 2nd Edition rules, as well as some changes (such as adding some complexes, but all complexes being limited in the number of units they can produce.)

Anyways, I have most of the documentation saved, it probably just needs some updated formatting; I wanted to post here first, so as to gauge interest and see if I should go through with the process of cleaning up what I have.

Thanks for reading hopefully there are some enthusiastic responses!

Operation Underbelly (part 4, continued)

Theorycraft: The Thinking Behind it All

1. The Iran Plan, and the Reserve Groups

I’ve classed the Soviet bomber as a reserve group, simply because it can be used in any/all of the proposed attacks; the remaining reserve units are a bit more limited. Our “cavalry” group can reach India on round 2 – so that’s almost an automatic; the armor group is a little bit trickier. Basically, if these groups are not used to attack Iran (and subsequently non-combat move to Pakistan/Turkmenistan/Sinkiang, to aid the followup attack on India in round 3) then they need to be non-combat moved towards your next objective: either South Korea, or Norway.

If not used against Iran, the armor can move one of a few ways:

Kazakhstan->Manchuria->South Korea
Kazakhstan->India->Burma
Ukraine->Karelia->Norway
Ukraine->Yugoslavia->Italy

The heavy armor can basically be positioned alongside the regular armor, but since it has the extra movement, it can quite easily also be used to attack India, and still catch up.

If you placed your 3 “flex” infantry in Georgia on round 1, this makes the Iran attack a lot more viable, since it means you can execute it without drawing significantly from your garrison forces in Turkey. Really, the objective with taking Iran is to move your reserve groups more quickly into the India theatre, and (potentially) move the rest of your armor more quickly out of that theatre (and onward to Europe) once India has been mopped up.

The concern I have with taking Iran, is that the likely UK counter-strategy is to set up a shuck-shuck from Africa into Pakistan – combining their South African cruiser, Australian navy, and Mediterranean fleet in the Persian Gulf, by round 2. If Iran’s neutrality is broken, this opens the floodgate for NATO forces, into territories that the USSR would otherwise not have to worry too much about defending. I think what it boils down to, is whether the USSR is able to take out the India transport, and whether their sub at Cyprus manages to live long enough to keep the UK from getting through the Suez.

This would mean the USSR has an extra cruiser (in the Red Sea) with another round to mop up the Australian navy, thus neutering the UK’s amphibious capabilities in the area. (Again, this would assume the “strong India” tactic, where the Australian navy moves to India SZ; if they don’t, India won’t be strong enough to withstand the USSR’s attack on round 2 – that’s just how much of a difference those Aussie infantry make.) If the Soviet bomber didn’t take out the India transport on round 1, then this cruiser (if able to survive) would also be able to re-engage that target, if it moves towards Mozambique; the bomber is also within range of this SZ.

2. Japan SZ, 2: Electric Boogaloo

As was illustrated in the earlier post, one conceivable US response is to set up their surface fleets in the Japan SZ and the Burma SZ. This is why a Soviet followup attack on Japan SZ is an attractive option… assuming it’s at all possible. For the attack to be viable, we need at least some of our navy in the Pacific to have survived the US counter-attack; if we have no ships left, it’s not advisable.

The other drawback to this offensive, is that it requires all of our air power (within reach) to be redirected towards it, significantly weakening our India attack. It might be worthwhile in the long run (for preventing US reinforcements to southeast Asia, or amphibious assaults into East Siberia) but taking out India ASAP should always be the priority.

The nice thing with this option, however, is that our air power is fairly well masked; the US may not see it coming. If they use up all their fodder (subs) counter-attacking our cruisers, this makes their surface ships even more vulnerable (assuming any fodder of our own remains, to throw into the attack.)

3. Fire, Maneuver; Fire, Maneuver

The important thing with using aircraft so heavily in the India strategy, is to always be repositioning them closer to the next objective. Once India falls, we need to non-combat move those fighters either towards South Korea, or our next target in Europe (likely Norway.)

I’m a bit late in mentioning this, but the other reason for using our airpower in Asia (aside from being faster than armor, or even heavy armor) is that NATO does not begin with any AA guns there. This is why the “armor for Europe, air for Asia” doctrine helps us to maximize our offense, and minimize the risk to our units.

4. You Sunk My Battleship!

With the naval positioning I’ve proposed, one potential outcome of the NATO counter-maneuvers, is to end up with the WE ships from the Mediterranean being moved to the Cyprus SZ. This isn’t necessarily a “sexy” target, but I think part of the Soviet naval doctrine (that is emerging from my research into this strategy) is to take out these sorts of targets early, while you still have fodder (ships) to commit to these actions. This leaves any NATO transport capacity with fewer surface ships to escort them, thus making them potentially vulnerable to attacks by “naked” Soviet air forces (i.e. without naval support.)

As I had touched on earlier, in a more “Europe First” type of strategy, it seems like it’d make sense to commit air and naval power to hit the British surface fleet first, and then smash the “softer” targets with whatever forces you can scrape together, on subsequent rounds. (It’s worth noting that, coincidentally, this UK fleet consists of the same units as the US starting fleet in the Japan SZ.)

Also, splitting your naval forces allows for this sort of punch-counterpunch idea, whereby you always have a reserve naval force (for fodder) with which to strike back – assuming that NATO can’t afford to spread their attacks around, and sink everything all in one go.

@barnee
I tested it quite a bit (just solo play) way back when I first wrote it; that’s how the various Axis buffs / Allied restrictions more or less got hammered out.

Probably the Pacific part would still be the most rough, if I had to point to one area. I do recall at one point I just had it as “all original Japanese naval units are still Japanese in this setup” but eventually changed that (hence the big discount in cost of naval units on Round Zero.) Also, at one point I had it as NO allied AA guns firing during Round Zero, but India was falling too easily/reliably, so that’s when it was changed to just US/USSR having that restriction.

I also tinkered with the turn order a bit (and with the possibility of not having US/USSR act at all, during round one), but with the “impulse” turn being what it is, you can’t quite let Germany have two full turns before Russia can react; much the same for Japan. So, there was some thought and testing that went into hewing closer to the original turn order (not just “keep it the same, for the sake of keeping it the same.”)

Having Persia under the USSR helps make the sea zone split a little easier to manage, but also gives Germany an alternate attack route, without having to mix the threatres together at all.
Similarly, I had considered giving Western Canada to the Pacific US (since it doesn’t quite feel right being part of “China”) – and in the original A&A Pacific game, Western Canada is a 0-IPC territory, so it doesn’t matter much who owns it. I definitely think it makes more sense being part of “UK Pacific” in the context of playing the global game.

Were there any specific rules or changes you had any questions about? I’m happy to answer

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Balance Fix: reduced starting forces for NATO

With the game now being available to everyone via MapView, I’ve been able to play and tinker a bit, and I’m coming back to this idea again. The overall intention being to adjust the balance of the two opposing forces, without it being noticeable enough to impact the game’s overall presentation.

One thing I should touch on right away from the previous post, is that I was using the totals for NATO infantry from the “total” column in the rulebook… which has some addition errors; specifically, the total UK infantry is actually 31, not 33. (Their starting income is 33 …coincidence?)

Anyway, here’s my revised idea (after much back-and-forth) that I’d be willing to test out if anyone wants to have a game:

• [unchanged] territories with more than 1 WE infantry start with 1 less WE infantry (France, Italy, Norway, West Germany, Greece, Turkey, Indochina)
• UK and US territories with more than 1 UK infantry start with half as many UK infantry (UK, Iceland, India, New South Wales, South Africa)
• US territories with more than 1 US infantry start with 1 less US infantry (East US, West US, Iceland, South Korea, Japan, Philippines)
• remove any NATO fighters from territories with an IPC value of 2, which do not also contain an armor unit (Iceland, Indochina, New South Wales)
• remove any NATO submarines based off the coasts of territories with an IPC value of 2 (Iceland, New South Wales)

The Soviets also receive the following boosts; these would be in lieu of the 20 IPC “rapid mobilization” bonus:

• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2 or more, and with at least 1 starting infantry, each gain one additional infantry (East Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Karelia, Belarus, Ukraine, Orel, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, East Siberia, Kamchatka, North Korea)
• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2, which contain an industrial complex, each gain 1 fighter and 1 cruiser (Karelia, East Siberia)
• other Soviet territories which contain an industrial complex each gain 1 heavy armor (Ukraine, Russia)

Final tally:

Infantry:
USSR (+15) / Total: 75
WE (-7) / Total: 21
UK (-8) / Total: 23
US (-6) / Total: 27
[NATO total: 71]

Fighters:
USSR (+2) / Total: 9
WE (-1) / Total: 3
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 6
[NATO total: 12]

Submarines:
USSR [unchanged] Total: 6
WE [unchanged] Total: 1
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 3
[NATO Total: 7]

Cruisers:
USSR (+2) / Total: 6
NATO [unchanged] Total: 7

– Any comments/questions, just shoot me a reply below

@the-janus said in 1941 "limited" scenario for A&A Classic:

some of the “limited” scenarios (where not all nations were used/played) on thrasher’s A&A site

Just as a fun bit of context, I dug up one of the scenarios that I believe had influenced my ideas here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20020416082827/http://www.wargamer.com/axisandallies/original/scenarios/historical/1939/scenario_1939_battleplan_perrintong.html

This scenario has both China and (what particularly stood out in my memory) “South Pacific Forces” as separate powers from the US and UK. With the timeframe of 1941 (China already at war with Japan, and the UK already at war in the West) it made more sense to me to slot China in with the UK rather than the US. This means Chinese units wouldn’t be subject to the early game restrictions that the US has, and also gives “China” enough of an economy to really be a meaningful world power in this setup (albeit as a sub-faction of the UK, rather than a truly independent power.)

Tech/Spying revamp: Breakthroughs

Coming back to this, the 2nd half of my previous house rule thread outlines what I call the “breakthrough” system; this replaces both the spying and technology phases.

Each nation can make a number of free breakthrough rolls equal to:

the number of free tech rolls they get, under the baseline rules + the maximum number of spies they can have on the board at a time, under the baseline rules

This gives us the following numbers:

• USSR: 3
• WE: 1
• UK: 1
• US: 2

Each nation may also purchase a number of additional breakthrough rolls on their turn, up to the number of free breakthroughs roll they can make; the cost of an additional breakthrough roll is equal to the cost of an infantry, for that nation (2 for USSR, or 3 for any of the NATO powers.) Being that E&W is fundamentally still an IPM game, this is intended to make purchasing breakthroughs competitive with purchasing infantry.

Breakthrough results:
on a roll of 1, you may do one of the following:

• gain a diplomatic success at a neutral alliance (OAS, Arab League, or China)
• gain a full step in one technology tree

on a roll of 2, you may do one of the following:

• gain a diplomatic success at any minor/independent neutral
• gain a half-step in one technology tree

You may only apply one breakthrough to any tech tree, per turn.

---

Optional rules:

• The USSR may use a 2 to influence China
• (revised NATO tech sharing) If a NATO partner uses a 1 to gain a technological advancement, both other NATO partners may each gain a half-step in that same tech tree. This is still not allowed for the nuclear weapons tech tree.
• (revised USSR counter-intelligence) The USSR may make one free counter-intelligence roll on their turn; if the result is a 1 or 2, this roll can be used to foil a matching NATO breakthrough on the same round, only. The USSR may also purchase 1 additional counter-intelligence breakthrough on each of their turns.

---

These optional rules combined, would in theory make it easier for the USSR to keep China in the fold, since it also encourages NATO to use their 1s on technology rather than diplomacy.

Essentially, I’ve come to the conclusion lately that nuclear tech is supremely important for the USSR, and the only viable NATO counter is diplomacy. The problem is that the USSR gets free tech rolls AND free rolls to foil NATO’s spies (i.e. their attempts at diplomacy.) In my opinion, this is where the late-game imbalance lies, and short of just completely removing tech/spying from the game (or imposing nerfs on the USSR) the only other real fix is to move towards something where all sides can make any type of rolls they want (i.e. in the base game, US having a free tech roll when they really need a free diplomacy roll, IMO.) Allowing for more rolls overall, should also decrease the randomness by flattening the bell curve. It’s also just fun (in my experience) to get to see more techs in play by more countries, and more neutrals getting active – and allowing that to play into your strategies more reliably.

@barnee re: testing

Since the Axis each have a starting income that is divisible by 3, originally I had the mechanics for merging theatres as a function of the Axis country either increasing their income by 2/3rds more than their starting income, or decreasing it by 1/3rd less than their starting income. (Which sort of dovetails into the “2 out of 3” rule for Victory Cities.)

This effectively worked out to:
Germany: +14/-7
Italy: +8/-4
Japan: +10/-5

Changing it to a uniform +10/-5 made the math a little bit more intuitive, but it also means the USSR doesn’t have to get beat up so much (down half their income, possibly even losing their capitol) before the US/UK are able to jump in and help.

In terms of territorial gains/losses, this typically works out like…
+10 Germany = Karelia, Ukraine, Caucasus, Persia
-5 Germany = Finland/Norway, Eastern Europe

+10 Italy = all of Africa, plus Brazil or Eastern Canada
-5 Italy = all of Africa (except for one territory), or losing Southern Europe

+10 Japan = all Chinese territories, plus India or Philippines
-5 Japan = Indochina/Burma, Manchuria

---

So, Italy probably has the toughest time (as one might expect) but none of these scenarios are completely out of the realm of possibility.

@the-janus said in 1941 "limited" scenario for A&A Classic:

some of the “limited” scenarios (where not all nations were used/played) on thrasher’s A&A site

Just as a fun bit of context, I dug up one of the scenarios that I believe had influenced my ideas here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20020416082827/http://www.wargamer.com/axisandallies/original/scenarios/historical/1939/scenario_1939_battleplan_perrintong.html

This scenario has both China and (what particularly stood out in my memory) “South Pacific Forces” as separate powers from the US and UK. With the timeframe of 1941 (China already at war with Japan, and the UK already at war in the West) it made more sense to me to slot China in with the UK rather than the US. This means Chinese units wouldn’t be subject to the early game restrictions that the US has, and also gives “China” enough of an economy to really be a meaningful world power in this setup (albeit as a sub-faction of the UK, rather than a truly independent power.)

@barnee
I tested it quite a bit (just solo play) way back when I first wrote it; that’s how the various Axis buffs / Allied restrictions more or less got hammered out.

Probably the Pacific part would still be the most rough, if I had to point to one area. I do recall at one point I just had it as “all original Japanese naval units are still Japanese in this setup” but eventually changed that (hence the big discount in cost of naval units on Round Zero.) Also, at one point I had it as NO allied AA guns firing during Round Zero, but India was falling too easily/reliably, so that’s when it was changed to just US/USSR having that restriction.

I also tinkered with the turn order a bit (and with the possibility of not having US/USSR act at all, during round one), but with the “impulse” turn being what it is, you can’t quite let Germany have two full turns before Russia can react; much the same for Japan. So, there was some thought and testing that went into hewing closer to the original turn order (not just “keep it the same, for the sake of keeping it the same.”)

Having Persia under the USSR helps make the sea zone split a little easier to manage, but also gives Germany an alternate attack route, without having to mix the threatres together at all.
Similarly, I had considered giving Western Canada to the Pacific US (since it doesn’t quite feel right being part of “China”) – and in the original A&A Pacific game, Western Canada is a 0-IPC territory, so it doesn’t matter much who owns it. I definitely think it makes more sense being part of “UK Pacific” in the context of playing the global game.

Were there any specific rules or changes you had any questions about? I’m happy to answer

Turn Order:
(With the intention of keeping as close to the original turn order, while still slotting in the added countries)

1. USSR
2. a) Italy (and Vichy France)
   b) Germany
3. a) UK (Atlantic)
   b) China (includes India, Dutch, ANZAC, etc.)
4. Japan
5. a) US Pacific
   b) US Atlantic

---

Round Zero / “Impulse”:
Prior to the first full round, the Axis get one round to act. This should be played out in the turn order described above, omitting the Allied turns.

The Axis conduct all phases of their turns during this round, with some very important bonuses added:

• Infantry & Armor: attack power is increased by 2, costs are reduced by 1 IPC
• Fighters & Bombers: attack with 2 dice instead of 1, costs are reduced by 2 IPC
• Naval units: attack power is increased by 1, costs are reduced by half

During this round, Allied units defend as per normal, with one notable exception: since they are not yet at war, AA guns belonging to the USSR and USA do not fire.

Axis Advantage / “Russia Restricted”
On the first round, the USSR and the US (both Atlantic and Pacific) may only conduct the following phases of their turns: Purchase Units, Place Units, Collect Income.

In addition to the bonuses on Round Zero, all three Axis countries gain these benefits:

• all Axis battleships are 2-hit battleships
• all Axis powers have Super Submarine technology
• all Axis powers have Jet Power technology

---

Setup & Territorial Changes:
The original setup for Classic is used, however changes in ownership of a territory also govern changes in the nationality of ALL units listed for that territory (including naval units) with the following exceptions:

• All German naval units are given to Italy (including any newly purchased units)
• All Soviet naval units are given to the UK; the USSR may not produce naval units in this scenario

---

As you can see from the map above, the sea zones are broken down into two sections:

1. those bordering the territories of USSR, Germany, Italy, UK, and US Atlantic – to be used only by the navies and air forces of those countries
2. all other sea zones – to be used by the navies and air forces of China, Japan, and US Pacific

You’ll note that this limitation creates one sea zone in the mid-Atlantic which is effectively impassable; feel free to adjudicate this differently, if you find a change to be helpful.

---

Industrial Complexes / “Victory Cities”:
Add an AA gun and Industrial Complex to the following territories:

• Ukraine SSR
• South Africa
• India
• Australia

No new industrial complexes may be built.

In this scenario, the number of units a complex can produce is limited to the IPC value of the territory in which it is located (including capitols.) As such, you may only purchase a number of units up to the total IPC value of the industrial complexes which you have controlled since the start of your turn. For example: the UK has an industrial complex on their capitol (8 IPCs) as well as in South Africa (2 IPCs) meaning they can purchase a maximum of 10 units on their turn.

Further to this, the number of naval units you may purchase is limited not only to the IPC value of your coastal/island complexes, but also by whether the adjacent sea zones are clear of enemy ships. For example: Since Japan only has an industrial complex in their capitol, if the islands are surrounded by Allied naval units at the start of the Japanese turn, Japan may not purchase any naval units on that turn.

A nation who loses their capitol may continue to collect IPCs from any territories they still control, provided they also still control at least one industrial complex after the Combat Phase of their turn. If a nation controls no industrial complexes after any nation’s Combat Phase, they must surrender their IPCs to the nation whose turn it currently is. They also can no longer collect IPCs, until they regain control of at least one industrial complex.

Victory is achieved when either side controls at least “2 out of 3” Axis and “2 out of 3” Allied starting Industrial Complexes (8 Industrial Complexes in total) at the end of any round of play.

Theatres of War
It is intended that each theatre may be played separately, as their own sort of “mini-game” but they may also be played in concert, and merge together under certain circumstances of victory or defeat. A nation may not attack nor move units into any territory which is not a part of their theatre, until those theatres merge together.

• Atlantic Theatre: UK, Italy, US Atlantic
• European Theatre: USSR, Germany
• Pacific Theatre: China, Japan, US Pacific

If Germany or Italy collects an income of at least 5 IPCs less than their starting income, the Atlantic and European theatres merge at the start of the following round. This also happens if Germany collects an income of at least 10 IPCs more than their starting income.

If Italy or Japan collects an income of at least 10 IPCs more than their starting income, the Atlantic and Pacific theatres merge at the start of the following round. This also happens if Japan collects an income of at least 5 IPCs less than their starting income.

If playing any theatre individually, the Axis country wins if they collect an income of at least 15 IPCs more than their starting income; the Allies win if the Axis country collects no income.

Starting Incomes:

1. USSR - 28 IPCs
2. a) Italy - 12 IPCs
   b) Germany - 21 IPCs
3. a) UK - 18 IPCs
   b) China - 18 IPCs
4. Japan - 15 IPCs
5. a) US Pacific - 18 IPCs
   b) US Atlantic - 17 IPCs

---

Mergers and Restrictions
Whenever the European and Atlantic theatres merge, Germany and Italy combine their cash on hand, and effectively become one nation.

Whenever the Atlantic and Pacific theatres merge, the same happens with the UK and China, as well as with US Atlantic and US Pacific. Additionally, when this merger takes place, the restrictions on naval movement end; the navies of all nations can enter any sea zones on the map.

Unlike most global Axis & Allies games, in this scenario Japan and the USSR may never attack each others’ territories or naval units. However, if the Pacific and European theatres have merged (i.e. all 3 theatres must have merged, for this to happen) the following actions are permitted:

• Soviet units may enter Allied-controlled territories (such as those belonging to China)
• Japan may destroy Soviet units in Allied-controlled territories, on Allied aircraft carriers, or aboard Allied transports.

---

Other Recommended Rules

1. No invading neutrals
2. No technology advancement

I’ve decided to leave out most of the “errata”-type changes I had written up in my earlier draft, since those are mostly down to a matter of taste; generally sticking to the 2nd Edition rules will be perfectly fine. But if anyone is interested, I’ll be happy to add those to the thread.

---

If you have any questions or comments, please post them down below

@krieghund said in Applying Casualties Question:

The rules do say on page 18 that the defender resolves combat “as the attacker did”, but they go on to say that the attacker’s casualties are “immediately removed from the battle board” and that “They are immediate casualties because they have already fired.” This clearly indicates that they are treated differently from the defender’s casualties in this regard, but the process is the same in all other regards.

Herein I think lies a chunk of the issue: the word “casualties” is being used to describe two mechanically different concepts.

• a Defender’s casualties which are expressly “behind the casualty line” and are allowed to fire back
• an Attacker’s casualties, which are neither moved behind a casualty line, nor are allowed to fire back (i.e. “immediate casualties”)

I also think the fact that the description of the counterattack being resolved “as the attacker did” then jumps to “units that are hit are immediately removed” allows for some vagueness/confusion as to the ways in which the counterattack is similar, and what the actual order of operations is, for doing everything that occurs during/between those two steps. (I suspect your contention would be they are only similar in the manner that combat is resolved by columns, but I don’t believe the text is specific enough to say that, definitively.)

So, we’re treating defender “losses” and attacker “casualties” as being the same (and defender casualties and attacker casualties as being different)? If so, then I would say that if we accept the contention that defending losses are determined after all attackers have fired (and keeping in mind that the counterattack is resolved “as the attacker did”) then it stands to reason that attacker’s “casualties” should be determined at the same point in the sequence as defender’s “losses” i.e. “immediately” after all defending dice have been rolled, as per the contention.

Now, I think we disagree on that fundamental contention, and that’s fine. I merely want to demonstrate how I can understand why the contention has been made in the past. I think your explanation of how the rules are meant to work is more straightforwardly supported by the text.

@andrewaagamer

I completely understand the arguments you are making, and I agree with you.

In short, my point is that I can read the text of the book and draw different conclusions about what the implications of the text are.

I’m not even saying you’re wrong, I’m saying I can understand why there’s different interpretations of the text.

@andrewaagamer said in Applying Casualties Question:

Also, not all opposed dice are rolled before a unit becomes lost.

Please read the example combats I cited from the rule book.

@krieghund said in Applying Casualties Question:

It’s simply because, unlike the defender’s casualties, the attacker’s have already fired, and don’t need to stick around any longer.

Correct. So here is a further question: the rules on page 5 say “The defender now rolls for a counterattack, just as the attacker rolled.” (I believe roughly the same wording is used on page 18 or 19, as well.)

If we grant that there is a distinction in the text between a “casualty” and a unit that is “lost” (and that units are only ‘lost’ after all of the opposed dice have been rolled) would it not then follow that all defending dice must be rolled, before attacking units are designated as “lost”?

This would follow from the assertion that the defender rolls “just as the attacker” and also would not put the defender at a distinct advantage over the attacker when deciding casualties (as you suggest it would, if the defenders hits were inflicted by columns, but attackers weren’t.)

I also believe this would explain why there is a distinction between defender’s casualties vs. attacker’s (i.e. the word literally appearing on the battle board, on the defending side, but not the attacking side.) There is still a line for “hit” attackers to be moved behind, but they are not behind a “casualty line” because “behind the casualty line” implies the mechanic of being able to shoot back, after being hit (which attackers cannot.) This might also make it more clear why one side’s “casualties” are removed on the counterattack phase, and another’s are removed on the “remove all casualties” phase.