another note, i think the Finnish winter war and molotav cocktail ability and the UK’s ultra+radar tech should only apply when they are defending becasue it just does not make sence if it helps them when they are attacking. and the ultra+radar should only wen their are air bases in the terriotry
And Italy not being able to move into western europe and fight with german troops in the soveit union is a weird rule seeing as many Italians were garrisoned at the beaches of Normandy in static divisions and even more Italians fought in the Soveit Union with Germany and other allies
my suggestion is to not add new major resources that become just as important or replace IPCs like metal, coal, and oil. Becasue then you have to have a chart that represent industrial capacity with wierd formuals nobody likes.
in my experice adding one major resource equals in additonal complexity about five new units each with a unique special ability
another note, i think the Finnish winter war and molotav cocktail ability and the UK’s ultra+radar tech should only apply when they are defending becasue it just does not make sence if it helps them when they are attacking. and the ultra+radar should only wen their are air bases in the terriotry
I agree–especially with regard to the British Ultra + Radar tech. (One could argue that Finnish soldiers could still use Molotov cocktails even when on offense.) However, my rules set does not allow units to have different values for offense and defense. Maybe I should rename the British tech “Spitfire.”
And Italy not being able to move into western europe and fight with german troops in the soveit union is a weird rule seeing as many Italians were garrisoned at the beaches of Normandy in static divisions and even more Italians fought in the Soveit Union with Germany and other allies
Okay . . . I may have more thinking to do there. (The optional rules variant with Italy et al is a relatively recent addition to the rules set.) My fear was that, without that rule in place, all Italian infantry would simply be thrown away as cannon fodder against the Soviet Union or other Allies. Which would not have been historically accurate; as Italy’s main focus was on North Africa and its war against Britain. But you’re correct to say that some Italians did, in fact, serve on the eastern front.
Probably the best way to fix this problem is to give Italy three transports in the Mediterranean, perhaps to make Africa and the Middle East a little more valuable, and to ensure that few if any non-Italian Axis transports are in the Mediterranean. That would likely tempt the Axis player into sending most of his Italian strength into Africa.
@Emperor:
my suggestion is to not add new major resources that become just as important or replace IPCs like metal, coal, and oil. Becasue then you have to have a chart that represent industrial capacity with wierd formuals nobody likes.
I agree, which is why I haven’t added them. And I’m very unlikely to add them in the future, as much as I’m tempted to do so. Too much complexity will ruin any otherwise good rules set.
Probably the best way to fix this problem is to give Italy three transports in the Mediterranean, perhaps to make Africa and the Middle East a little more valuable, and to ensure that few if any non-Italian Axis transports are in the Mediterranean. That would likely tempt the Axis player into sending most of his Italian strength into Africa.
Yes definently, make the mediteranian a more important theater, even in the Europe A&A this theater is not important at all and it is al about the eastern front which is quiet a boring theater becasue it uses less that half the games units. Who cares if 20 million Russians were killed, its boring if they are killed exactly the same way.
I would suggest even adding more territories. Add tunisia, sardinia, looks like you have already added sicily but allow land movement between Italy and sicily so that the inland is accually important, add malta, Greece, and split Liybia into Tripolitania and Cyrencia. plus add two more sea zones. also if this is in 1940 add Crete and somaliland and vichy France. There are some idiots that add Moracco which is the worst terriotry to add because algeiria and morraco wher both captured in torch at the same time while their was a huge battle in tunisa
I dont know if you have VCs in your game but if you do make Tunis a vicotry city. Many will say you should add cairo, but this leads to is the british player building up defence in egypt which is not hisotrical as it was the british who carried out the first offensive in the desert.
also about units having defence bonus’s. I dont think just becasue the base units do not have explict defensive or offensive advantages does not mean you shouldn’t have tech or other modifiers that are bias torwards defence. You would argee with me that in war defendes have many advatages over the attacker and that defence is much cheaper that offence.
more toughts
shouldn’t the Russians have the same light infantry rules as the Italians, you know, becasue of the purges
For Finalnd you could add the vyborg territory which incompasses the land ceded by Finland to the Soveits in the winter war. This terriotry is in A&A Europe and if you also make leningrad a sperate territory from Karlia if helps defend finland.
Once Finland has a second terriotry if would not need to also control Norway and the blatic states.
I would also think a third finish terriotry in northern finland would also add a bit of excitment to the game
more toughts
shouldn’t the Russians have the same light infantry rules as the Italians, you know, becasue of the purges
For Finalnd you could add the vyborg territory which incompasses the land ceded by Finland to the Soveits in the winter war. This terriotry is in A&A Europe and if you also make leningrad a sperate territory from Karlia if helps defend finland.
Once Finland has a second terriotry if would not need to also control Norway and the blatic states.I would also think a third finish terriotry in northern finland would also add a bit of excitment to the game
Changes I’ve made to the main rules set:
Changes I’ve made to the minor nations variant:
Changes I’m contemplating:
The scenario begins in the spring of 1942. While Soviet infantry fought poorly early in the war, by the spring of ‘42 they were fighting quite well. Not as well as the German infantry (on a man-for-man basis) but that was more a case of Germany fighting well than of the Soviets fighting badly. Witness the Soviet performance in the undeclared war between itself and Japan, or the Soviets’ invasion of Manchuria in 1945. The latter was seen by both sides as a prelude to any would-be Soviet invasion of Japan itself. Japanese resistance collapsed in the face of the Soviet onslaught.
also about units having defence bonus’s. I dont think just becasue the base units do not have explict defensive or offensive advantages does not mean you shouldn’t have tech or other modifiers that are bias torwards defence. You would argee with me that in war defendes have many advatages over the attacker and that defence is much cheaper that offence.
I’m loath to adopt this change for two reasons:
It’s true that some areas of the world had natural defensive advantages. Italy was one such example, as Germany demonstrated after the fall of Mussolini. Parts of France were another. Leningrad and Stalingrad also come to mind due to the difficulties of urban warfare. It’s possible to build blockhouses in each of these areas.
Other theaters were better suited to offense. North Africa comes to mind, especially because of the ease with which one can use the Sahara desert to outflank one’s enemy to the south. Offensives on the German/Soviet front were also often effective, because the large, wide-open spaces made it comparatively easy to encircle an enemy army. Germany won a number of such encirclement victories in the summers of '41 and '42, just as the Soviet Union won such a victory at Stalingrad.
You may be tempted to point out that the Soviets used massive defensive installations at Kursk, and that these thwarted the German advance there. The Soviet defense was six layers deep, the Soviets had a 2:1 advantage or better in men and land units (such as artillery and tanks), and rough parity in planes. The reason why the Soviets’ defense was so effective was because the Kursk salient was a fairly obvious place for the Germans to attack. Knowing this, von Mannstein suggested an advance along the southern portion of the German-Soviet front, instead. Had his advice been followed, it’s likely the attack would have been successful, as were the German attacks in the summer of '41. But instead, Hitler chose to follow the advice of the majority of his General Staff: to go after the Kursk salient.
In summary:
Blockhouses = natural defensive advantages augmented by fortifications
Attack + bad die rolls = doing something stupid, like ignoring the advice of one of the best generals to have ever lived (von Mannstein)
Attack + neutral die rolls = A more normal battle along the German/Soviet front, which often involved the encirclement and destruction of large groups of defending soldiers.
The scenario begins in the spring of 1942. While Soviet infantry fought poorly early in the war, by the spring of ‘42 they were fighting quite well. Not as well as the German infantry (on a man-for-man basis) but that was more a case of Germany fighting well than of the Soviets fighting badly. Witness the Soviet performance in the undeclared war between itself and Japan, or the Soviets’ invasion of Manchuria in 1945. The latter was seen by both sides as a prelude to any would-be Soviet invasion of Japan itself. Japanese resistance collapsed in the face of the Soviet onslaught.
good point, i agree
but i really think you should keep the radar tech aslong as it just aplies for defence of ICs or airbases, it really donst’ make sence that spitfires are so much better on offence.
another idea is you could give air bases a greater defence
is their any chance you can show us or at least compare your map to the A&A revised or AA50 map in detail.
on the defence thing. radar was very important to the british and it only works on defence. Also if you want to keep the finnish molotov cocktail ability i would change the name to anti-tank rifles or weapons. It is really hard to transport molotovs as anyone can imagine.
Also there are alot of other things that benfit defence besidies bunkers and hills. tactical reserves can be called up faster and you expend less ammunition. Given just a few hours defeneders can build concealment for infantry and armor. Many times attackers will never see the defenders of a prepared position until they are in the enemies trench. Also hull-down armor has many advantages against attacking armor, at least on a tactical level. these are just to name a few.
I’ve updated the site to include setup information and a partial attempt at a map. (The latter needs some work.) Probably so does the former, especially from a game balance perspective.
The Spitfire was better in air-to-air combat than its Axis counterparts, at least early in the war. I’d like to give the British a separate, defensive bonus for air-to-air combat due to their radar tech, sector stations, and Ultra. However, this would add complexity to my combat system. And it’s not like the Allies need another advantage.
The points you made about offense and defense are well-taken. But to compensate for some of those defensive advantages you mentioned, bear in mind that the attacker often has the advantage of surprise. Consider the invasions of France (in 1940 and again in 1944). In the former, the defenders expected Germany to revert to its Schlieffen Plan, and reacted accordingly. In 1944, German military planners had expected an attack on Calais; but instead the Allies invaded Normandy. It’s true that the defending Axis soldiers physically present in the Normandy vicinity had the defensive advantages you described. The same cannot be said about the larger, stronger Axis force in Calais. In both cases (1940 and 1944) being on the attack allowed the attacker to choose some weak point in the defense, to throw overwhelming force at that weak point, to break through, and to thereby nullify the defensive advantages that the majority of the defending force would otherwise have had.
Keep up the good work bro. You have some great ideas.
The points you made about offense and defense are well-taken. But to compensate for some of those defensive advantages you mentioned, bear in mind that the attacker often has the advantage of surprise. Consider the invasions of France (in 1940 and again in 1944). In the former, the defenders expected Germany to revert to its Schlieffen Plan, and reacted accordingly. In 1944, German military planners had expected an attack on Calais; but instead the Allies invaded Normandy. It’s true that the defending Axis soldiers physically present in the Normandy vicinity had the defensive advantages you described. The same cannot be said about the larger, stronger Axis force in Calais. In both cases (1940 and 1944) being on the attack allowed the attacker to choose some weak point in the defense, to throw overwhelming force at that weak point, to break through, and to thereby nullify the defensive advantages that the majority of the defending force would otherwise have had.
your making offence to powerful becasue the game already takes into account the attackers ability to concentrate all his forces at a defenders weakspot becasue… you can concentrate all your forces at the defenders weakspot.
These seem pretty cool, I’ll be sure to print the rules. I’m not seeing any rules for the Pacific though :|
These seem pretty cool, I’ll be sure to print the rules. I’m not seeing any rules for the Pacific though :|
I appreciate the compliments from you and from Georgemak!
I’m currently putting the final touches on another rules set–a more advanced one. As is also the case for the rules set under discussion, this rules set is designed with a global war in mind. But that being said, I wouldn’t object to a custom map designer creating a Pacific scenario.
Every time I create a rules set like this, I try to build something generic enough that a custom map designer will have a lot of room in which to work. Working within the general framework, a custom map designer could create his own starting map, nations list, national advantages, disadvantages, and available technologies for each nation, starting unit setup, and other adjustments. The rules set is intended to give map designers plenty of room in which to exercise their creativity.
But my greatest current need is for a software developer. If anyone here is a developer or knows a developer who might be interested in something like this, please PM me.
