Combatting HUGE Infantry Stacks

[Ranger]

See a post below for a clearer reason…

So,  I am new to this forum and new to all “Modern” Axis & Allies Games.  I have been playing “Classic” since 1986 so I am familiar with some general tactics of the game.  I have a grand total of ONE (and a half) Global 2nd ver. under my belt and CAN’T WAIT for my next game.  
That being said, I have always had an issue with the, what I call, “Stack-em-up” defensive strategy as it seems to lengthen the game for no other reason than to lengthen the game…
My Best Friend (and playing partner since 1986) and I have always had an issue with this but, to be honest, never thought about house rules til he bought the newer games and began researching the prospects of House Rules.
I would love some help in dealing with this issue or, perhaps, finding a way to “Cope” with the reality of it, lol.

One idea I had was, instead of limiting stacks, providing “special units” for each country that have a more powerful attack value.  I have developed a list utilizing historical data, some current house rules I found in this forum, and some ideas of my own.

Below is what I have come up. Admittedly, some, like the Russian’s “Special” is in direct contrast to my issue of stacks but I could not come up with a better idea.  PLEASE RIP IT APART, AGREE, CRITIQUE AND WHATEVER ELSE.  I TAKE NOTHING PERSONALLY.  I’m just looking for help…

Any major power except China may build special units, but no nation may build more than one per turn, except the Soviet Union (see rule below).

Soviet Union - Citizen Soldier 2IPCs

A0 D1 M1
Each turn the Soviet Union can purchase up to 3 Citizens in defense of “The Motherland”. These units have no attack value but do defend at a 1.

US - Marines 4 IPCs

A1(amph 2) D2 M1
They function as regular infantry in all respects, except that they attack with a 2 when making an amphibious landing.

UK/ANZAC/France - Commandos 4 IPCs

A2 D1 M1.
They function as regular infantry in all respects.
Special capability: Commando raids–Can move 1 plus free sea zone to get to a target territory and perform a raid (somewhat same as a strategic/tactical bombing raid). After the raid is complete, they have the option to remain in the territory if captured that turn, or get same move 1 + sea zone to return to a friendly territory, in the non-combat movement phase…
Raid procedure:  Each raiding commando targets a base or complex.  Each target gets 2 defense rolls, 1 before, 1 and 1 after; in an originally controlled territory 1-2 to kill; any other territory 1 to kill. Surviving commandos roll 1D6 for damage on the facility.

Italy - Decima Flottiglia (Italian Frogmen) 4 IPCs

A1(amph 2) D2 M1 see special ability below for naval attack
The Decima Flottiglia MAS (Decima Flottiglia Mezzi d’Assalto, also known as La Decima or X MAS) (Italian for “10th Assault Vehicle Flotilla”) was an Italian commando frogman unit of the Regia Marina (Italian Royal Navy) created during the Fascist regime.  Decima MAS was active during the Battle of the Mediterranean and took part in a number of daring raids on Allied shipping. These operations involved surface speedboats (such as the Sinking of HMS York), manned torpedoes (the Raid on Alexandria) and Gamma Frogmen (against Gibraltar). During the campaign Decima MAS took part in more than a dozen operations which sank or damaged five warships (totaling 72,000 Gross Register Tonnage) and 20 merchant ships (totaling 130,000 GRT).
Special capability:  Decima Flottiglia acts the same as Marines with the addition of being able to have a one-time attack on Naval Vessels per round, on a coastal sea zone adjacent to the unit.
Raid Procedure:  A d6 roll of 1 will score a direct hit.  However, if this unit is unsuccessful the target will roll a d6 to determine their fate, 1-2 to kill.

Germany Fallschirmjager 4 IPCs
On paratroop missions(2rounds) A2 D3 M1 All other missions A1 D2 M1
Fallschirmjager  is the German word for paratroopers. They played an important role during World War II, when, together with the Gebirgsjager they were perceived as the elite infantry units of the German military. After World War II, they were reconstituted as parts of postwar armed forces of both West and East Germany, mainly as special ops troops.
1. They are paratroopers and all rules governing paratroopers apply.  
2. In addition, they attack at a 2 provided they are conducting a paratroop mission. Then, for the next round only, they will defend at a 3.  While moving in normal land combat they will be considered regular infantry.

Japan - Banzai Attacks
This is not a special unit but a special attack that can be applied to all Japanese Infantry Units per the rules below.
A frequent battle-cry of attacking Japanese troops was “Banzai!” meaning “May you live for 10,000 years”.
When you move infantry into a contested space during the combat move phase, you may at that time declare the intended attack to be a banzai attack (for an amphibious assault you may also include offshore bombardment support). If you do so, all those infantry attack on a 2 for the first round only. You may not withdraw from any banzai attack, regardless of whether it is amphibious or not.

[Ichabod]

You’ll probably get better advice then what I could provide as to your question…but from my limited experience, artillery is a way to help overcome the defensive advantage. When both sides’ cannon fodder roll @2, then the attackers’ higher numbers of tanks and air can really then make a difference and swing the battle in your favor after round 2 of a battle.

Your talking a house rules idea for special units. Look up General Hand Grenades ideas…his house rules might be an inspiration for your own.

[Imperious Leader]

And when you post can you edit out the black triangles with question marks?

[Ranger]

Thank you Ichabod, I will check it out.  Being new, and for all I know, General Hand Grenades ideas may have been some of the inspiration for what I wrote.  I will definitely check it out.

Imperious Leader,
As far as the black triangles go, I, at first, did not know why they were there…  I have edited my post and they are gone.  Still learning… :-D

[GeneralHandGrenade]

Welcome to the forums Ranger.

I’m not sure how these units will help to limit the stacks because of the low price and the fact that they are not that much more powerful than regular infantry units. Your Russian Units are cheaper and are really not much more than cannon fodder with their lack of offensive ability. The only other criticism that I would have is that with all of them being different it would make it too complicated to teach others how to play by your rules. If I were certain that people would take the time to memorize my house rules then I would make each unit different as you have.

When I made my Special Forces Unit, I purposefully made it a very powerful and useful weapon. I also made it an exclusive weapon with only 5 per nation per game and 1 per space. Like you, I wanted to limit the stacks of SFU that could smash through virtually any defence. I don’t agree with those who invent cheaper infantry or AA guns or cheaper anything for that matter. This is a really good game already without any house rules so if you’re going to make a change make it one that is going to make a difference in offensive capabilities and not something that’s just going to bog the game down.

Even though there really isn’t a comparison between the elite forces and their roles in the war I made them all the same to be consistent with the spirit of A&A where all nations have the same units.

Just because others have different philosophies on how to implement house rules, that doesn’t mean that your way is wrong or not as good. You should do what you think will make it a better game for you and your friends to play. There is a lot of good ideas in your elite units. When you’re satisfied that you have them right, invite others to play your game and see if the changes are too complicated for them to follow and see if the changes make the game more fun to play.

[Ranger]

Thanks GeneralHandGrenade!  Being new to Global and the idea of House Rules I had not taken into account the idea of “bogging the game down”.  You are correct, sometimes too much is too much and the game is already awesome enough.  If you know of any quality rules for limiting stacks I’m all ears(it’s still bothersome to me).  In the meantime I like your ideas of special forces and will probably attempt to adopt them next time I play.  We already have the pieces from HGB.

Now the newbie question:  What’s SFU?

[GeneralHandGrenade]

SFU=Special Forces Unit.
That’s the name that I call my elite units.

I’m not aware of any rules that limit the stacking of units other than my limit per territory of the SFU’s and my Heavy Tanks which also can only have 1 per territory and 5 per game.

[Ranger]

HA HA!  Of course that’s what it means…  Should’ve seen that!  Like you, and like what’s been said, the trick to stopping the D-Fence is O-Fence!..  And smarter game play, I’m sure!

[Argothair]

Hey Ranger,

Welcome to the forum, and to 21st-century Axis & Allies! Most people would agree with you that the Classic game from 1986 had too much emphasis on huge stacks of defensive infantry, which is why the artillery unit was invented in the 1990s! For only 7 IPCs, you can buy a pair of infantry and artillery that will attack every bit as well as a 6 IPC pair of two infantry. With very large stacks, you don’t even need to pair your artillery at 1:1, because some of your infantry will die during the battle. For example, if you have 70 IPCs to spend, then a stack of 14 infantry + 7 artillery will probably be more effective than a stack of 10 infantry + 10 artillery.

The practical effect of all this is that if you’re outproducing your opponent by even 20% or so, then your stacks of infantry + artillery can roll over his stacks of infantry, and you’ll be able to win the game by force without too much delay.

How do you get that 20% edge in the first place? Well, if your opponent insists on building one enormous stack of infantry, then that means he’s not defending the “fringe” territories at the borders of his empire, so you go to those other territories and claim them as your own. That’s where the tanks and fighters come in – their extra mobility allows you to threaten more than one territory at a time, so that there are too many different territories for your opponent to defend with just one giant stack. If your opponent keeps his stack together, you vacuum up his undefended territories, accumulate a 20% economic advantage, and then crush him. If your opponent splits his stack into two or more chunks, then you massively attack one chunk at a time and crush that chunk, and keep doing that until there aren’t any more chunks left.

Of course, on the larger maps, like Global 1940, you often see stacks of 50+ infantry despite this sharper tactical play, simply because the capitals are so far apart from each other and so important to defend. If you don’t like that effect, one crude but effective tool to fix it could be to borrow a rule from Tolkien’s War of the Ring board game – limit the number of dice that can be rolled in any one territory. For example, you might say that any given army can only roll 20 dice at a time, even if there are 30+ units in the army. If the army takes heavy casualties, then a 30-unit army will keep on rolling 20 dice for longer than an army that only started with exactly 20 units, but that’s still not quite as advantageous as getting to roll 10 extra dice from the start, so this reduces the effectiveness of enormous stacks without having to make huge stacks outright against the rules.

[Trenacker]

My instant reaction to the title of this thread was, “Boy, I’d sure hate it if my teenage children were experimenting with combating huge infantry stacks… How can I best warn them about the dangers of huge infantry stacks?”

[Argothair]

Remember, kids, a huge infantry stack looks cool on your capital now, but you’ll regret not investing in a more balanced army when your game is middle-aged and you’ve got an ally and three victory cities to support.

[Ranger]

Upon re-reading my original post I realized I did not state my full reasons for wanting to limit/change the stacks of infantry that inevitably begin to grow.

One of my issues with the stacks of infantry is the historical issues behind it.  Let’s use Germany as the example.  In 1938 Germany had 36 infantry divisions of 600,000 trained men. By 1939 the German Army had 98 divisions totaling 1.5 million well-trained men available for action.  In 1940 they had 2.5 million for the invasion of France and in 1941, for operation Barbarossa, they had approx. 3 million.  However, in 1943, after the Battle of Stalingrad, Germany lowered their physical qualifications and changed their age requirements for conscription to boys as young as 16 and men as old as 60, due to the losses they incurred throughout Russia and, for that matter, the War.  From the sick to domestic prisoners, any and all were required to fight.  Even getting to the point that those who were 50% Jewish were required to sign up.  All these units were ill-equipped and/or trained.

In A&A when a territory is able and allowed to consistently build full strength infantry, despite possible losses in territory(which would be a loss for the pool of men available), machinery, weaponry, etc., it goes against, in my opinion, the reality of what actually happened.

As countries begin to fold in A&A (and reality) it’s a fact that their power would begin to wane.  In this case, there is no way a 16 year old boy or a 60 year old man, ill-equipped, would fight as strong as a 22 year old who has been through several weeks of training and has been properly equipped.

The reduced IPCs one gets from losing territory certainly affects how many tanks, aircraft, etc. you can get.  This is a perfect representation of the diminished capacity of a losing nation.  However, the idea that you can stack infantry, at 3IPCs, would be correct if not for the full strength they are mobilized at.  This is where I came up with the idea of Russian Citizen Soldiers at 2IPCs for A0D1M1 idea, not the greatest, I know.  Again, it seems to lengthen the game unnecessarily.

I have thought of lowering defensive value when over a certain amount of infantry in a territory, but that wouldn’t be consistent because most good armies would send their lesser troops to the front line.  Penalizing a particular area wouldn’t work.  If you project this idea over a country you would need a whole other chart to track, which would lengthen the entire game, possibly.  I have thought of using each areas IPC value to determine the number you could build but that would make the game unbalanced, I think. As my original post indicated, I thought of doing the opposite, unsuccessfully I may add, and increase some offensive numbers but it still does not solve the HISTORICAL PROBLEM of armies getting weaker as they begin to lose.

Unfortunately, for me, I do not have an answer sufficient enough to fix this, perceived, problem, which is why I have brought it to you…

Thank you all for your responses!

[Ranger]

@Argothair:

Remember, kids, a huge infantry stack looks cool on your capital now, but you’ll regret not investing in a more balanced army when your game is middle-aged and you’ve got an ally and three victory cities to support.

I have started a group called AAA for this exact reason - “Axis and Allies Anonymous”.  It’s for Infantry Stack users as well as thier families…  Spread the word!

[Trenacker]

“At first, I played Axis & Allies alone. I was so ashamed. Later, I started playing Axis & Allies with friends. I guess you could say I just started hanging out with that crowd. Pretty soon, I didn’t even have to bring my own board.”

[GeneralHandGrenade]

As long as we’re confessing, I found a better looking board online and paid to have it come to my house and let me play on it. I even filmed myself playing on it and put it on the internet. When I got tired of that board because it was too shiny I paid for another board that I played on shamelessly and traded my old board for some toy soldiers and a few markers.

Whew!! I’m glad that I got that off my chest. I still feel dirty but at least I can look at myself in the mirror after I play with my new board on the internet. I’m a bad monkey… :-(

[Argothair]

Ranger, I’ve thought about the broader problem you raise – that armies should eventually deplete their manpower and struggle to recruit more infantry after a certain point…but I can’t think of any way to track the depletion of manpower short of physically writing down the number of infantry each player has bought through the the game, and the concept just doesn’t interest me enough to want to commit to that level of paperwork. There are definitely other interesting directions in which you could take a ww2 game…you could track manpower, oil, civilian shipping, etc., and put the focus of the game more on logistics than on combat – but those concepts don’t seem to mesh well with the Axis & Allies design. If you really want to explore those issues, I hink you’d literally be better off building a new game from scratch.

I’m glad to hear you bring them up and articulate them so well, though! It’s good to know I’m not the only one who cares about that stuff. :)

[Ranger]

OK, 2 things…

1st - Trenacker can be helped, we can work with you but GeneralHandGrenade - Sorry, hopeless.  You seem to have something even AAA can’t work with.  My Apologies :-o

2nd - Argothair

Thank you for your responses, it is a dilemma I have been working on, playing Classic.  I could never formulate a system that would deal with this Historical problem while keeping the integrity of the game intact. I’M NOT READY TO WAVE THE WHITE FLAG YET!  My hope is as I play more Global games I will get a better understanding.  Of course, as you stated very well, it is one of the reasons artillery was brought into the game and, perhaps, I just need to better learn how to utilize that piece.  One of the reasons I love A&A is the historical believeability of the game.  Almost all other aspects are pretty close to being dead-on, historically, without making one game seem to last from 1936-45(9 years). As you said, we could track everything, logistically, and I just don’t have that amount of time in my life.  However, the Infantry is a unit already in the game and getting that “on track” is and will be a goal of mine!
Thanks again!

[Ranger]

Would this work:

When a nation has fallen to 1? 2? etc.? territories they can only purchase a lesser Infantry unit.  Insert here what type of unit that may be…  If they choose, they may still purchase any other unit.  Although, to be honest, I haven’t worked that one out in my head yet and would welcome suggestions.

This would demonstrate a countries desperate counter-measure when “The End is Near”.

For instance, we will use the US as an example.  When the US is down to, let’s say, the Eastern and Central US ONLY they would be in that position because the bulk of their professional soldiers have been defeated.  At that point their main defense may be it’s armed citizens.  E.G. Red Dawn, baby!  WOLVERINES!!!  Patrick Swayze had “Grand-Daddy’s Pistol” and caused some turmoil but wouldn’t have been able to defeat the Russian and Cuban armies.  However, the “WOLVERINES” may be able to prolong the advance to allow professional soldiers to re-train, re-arm and re-group to stage a  sufficient counter-attack, thereby remaining in the war.  Of course this is akin, in a realistic setting, to both the Russian army/citizens, in defense of Moscow, and Germany, in defense of Berlin.  And, by the way, would’ve been for Japan had the US invaded.

My proposal:

1. When a nation has only 2 territories remaining they may only purchase 1 Infantry per/turn. All other soldiers would have to be a “Citizen Soldier” (there it is again) Attack-0 Defense-1 Movement-1
2. The cost for a Citizen Soldier would be 2IPCs per/unit. (I am concerned that the stacks may grow still but it will be lesser units and more HISTORICALLY ACCURATE).
3. Citizen Soldiers may only be purchased when a country is down to 2 or less territories
3. As soon as a nation occupies a 3rd territory they may, again, begin to produce “full strength” infantry

My hope is that this will entice players to place a little more emphasis on other territories and not just stack infantry solely on their capitol to the point that the game is lengthened due to simple offensive buildup from the aggressor and constant infantry buildup from the defender.  With a lesser defensive value of the citizen soldier it may be more appealing for the attacker to attack sooner and wipe out that country before they recapture a third territory.  And the beauty is, as always, it will come down to the dice rolls…

SUGGESTIONS ALWAYS WELCOME!!!

[Argothair]

Well, it could add some interesting flavor to the endgame, but if you’re down to two territories, then you’re not purchasing much of anything anyway, so there won’t be much tactical difference.

One of the strongest two-territory combinations is Moscow + Caucasus, which are often worth about 12 IPCs. So, instead of 4 regular infantry, you buy 6 citizen-soldiers…but they’ll defend roughly as well. 6 hit points and 6 defensive pips vs. 4 hit points and 8 defensive pips? It’s kind of a wash.

Even if you get the design of the citizen-soldier unit right, having the rule kick in when you’re down to only a couple of territories doesn’t quite satisfy the itch I’ve got, which is to punish countries that repeatedly over-produce infantry. The idea is that if you pour out the blood of your armies like water, well, then, eventually you run out of blood! But with the two-territory rule, you could build nothing but tanks and fighters the whole game, symbolizing your anxious concern to avoid risking any more lives than you absolutely have to – and then still wind up “running out” of infantry in the endgame when your enemies push you back to your capital.

There’s nothing wrong with designing custom units, and in fact I think your citizen-soldier unit is quite well-balanced, but I don’t think the “manpower tracking” problem can be solved with any kind or kinds of custom units. It’s just not that sort of problem.