Cards for Axis and Allies 1940

[Ghost One]

Ghost One- The Winter war already happened before the game started. Russia actually controls some of Finland that they took in the war at the start of the game.

yes you are right i forgot it happened right before the war
best of LUCK in your job search :-(

[Ghost One]

i have a i think a great idea, it seems that there will be a lot of cards for each country because of all the different card types and from what dannyboy said at first that each country  will choose one card at the beginning and must purchase additional cards that you probably won’t get to use very many cards each game. but my idea is instead of choosing one card at the beginning of the game each country will separate the Puppets, Cabinet Ministers, Commanders, National Advantages, and Doctrine cards into stacks and choose one from each. when they are done all the cards are shuffled together (except the 5 you choose off the top) for the game stack for that country. if they do this then it could represent the government for each country at the beginning of the war. this way you start the game with your own set up and get to use the cards right at the begging. also i thought that it would be better to instead of buying new cards with ipcs you could buy them with points earned at the purchase units faze by counting how many territories you have with an ipc value and dividing by (2 or 3?) and add that to the ones you may already have and that is how much you have to spend on cards (also maybe you can earn one every time you win a battle). these points would rep public opinion of the war or maybe how the government is handling the war at home and abroad.
i just thought of this and its late so there might be some things that don’t sound right.

[otahere34]

Ghost one, you would just take their ipc income from the income tracker. You don’t have to count the territories with ipcs on them. Unless you want to count ALL the territories that a country controls.

[dannyboy2016]

@CWO:

@dannyboy2016:

Your mention of Deep operations and Maskirovka has given me another idea. What if I had “Doctrine” cards for each country. You could only have one doctrine at a time.

I don’t know if this would qualify as a doctrine, but the Americans and the British had a lot of disagreements from 1942 to 1944 over their strategic and operational philosophies.  The British favoured things like indirect blows around the fringes of occupied Europe (for example Churchill’s depiction of Italy as the “soft underbelly of the crocodile” – which, considering how mountainous Italy is, turned out to be naive when the Allies invaded there) and long, thin, rapier-like strikes like Operation Market-Garden (which failed).  The Americans preferred head-on attacks like the Operation Overlord landings in Normandy, and advances along a broad front like the drive towards the Rhine in 1944-1945 – a method of warfare I’ve heard called the “Ulysses S. Grant approach”.

“indirect approach” would work as a British Doctrine
“Superior Firepower” would work for the Americans
Blitzkreige and Volksstrum would work for Gemany

However, it is probably better not to have a Doctrine card type and just have these type of things as"national advantage" cards

[CWO Marc]

@dannyboy2016:

“indirect approach” would work as a British Doctrine
“Superior Firepower” would work for the Americans
Blitzkreige and Volksstrum would work for Gemany

However, it is probably better not to have a Doctrine card type and just have these type of things as"national advantage" cards

A few comments:

“indirect approach” would work as a British Doctrine […] just have these type of things as"national advantage" cards<<

Well, “indirect approach” works well as a description of the British doctrine…but whether that doctrine itself worked (and thus whether it counts as a national advantage) is another question.  I suppose it worked in the sense that it made prudent use of Britain’s limited military manpower.  But from the American viewpoint it wasted resources on secondary theatres instead of using them to seek a decisive campaign where it mattered.

“Superior Firepower” would work for the Americans  <<

Yes.  Something more precise might be better (since no country would argue about the advantages of superior firepower), but I can’t think of any suitable term.

A related note: in his book Why the Allies Won, Richard Overy argues that the British and American strategic bombing campaigns reflected a British and American preference for methods of warfare which were technologically-oriented and capital-intensive.  This suited them, since they were both highly industrialized and scientifically advanced countries (and capitalist nations too, as the Russians would probably have commented.)  The USSR, on the other hand, had a more labour-intensive approach to warfare, reflecting the fact that it was less industrialized and that it had a larger population.

Blitzkreige and Volksstrum would work for Gemany <<

I’d recommend splitting those apart, and perhaps only keeping Blitzkrieg if you have to just pick one.  The Volksstrum was basically a force of last resort which was put together from manpower scraps in the last phase of the war, when Germany was on the ropes.  It actually resembled in some ways the British Home Guard, which was cobbled together after the British Army had had to leave most of its equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk and Britain was facing the prospect of a Nazi invasion.  Blitzkrieg was the method of warfare which won Germany its early victories, so it’s much more of a national advantage (and much more of an operational doctrine) than the Volksstrum.  (A related concept is the “Keil und Kessel” method which was one of the signature tactics of Blitzkrieg operations.)

[Ghost One]

i agree, the doctrines are different from  the national advantages in some cases. they are like the scorched earth policy, you have it as a national advantage but it would be more suited as a doctrine. the national advantages could be more physically representing like heavy tanks or bombers you have that the enemy doesn’t rather than policies or doctrines.
here are the definition of each. i hope this doesn’t look bad giving the definitions.
Advantage-any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to success, interest, or any desired end.
Doctrine-a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government

[dannyboy2016]

CWO Marc- If I did doctrines as a separate type of card, countries would only be allowed to have one doctrine in play at a time.

Ghost One- While I see your point there is the issue that it’d be very difficult to come up with multiple doctrines for each country. However we might make that work if we include things like air or naval doctrines and if some doctrines could be used by multiple countries (like Fleet in Being as a naval doctrine available for several countries, for instance).

[dannyboy2016]

Okay here are some basic doctrine ideas based on the US
Combined Arms- Basically McNair’s baby. I’d say give some sort of combined arms bonus, for having, artillery, infantry, mechanized infantry, and Armor, and aircraft taking part in a battle. Also allow infantry and artillery to blitz when paired with a tank.

Superior Firepower - Use the overwhelming abundance in material and munitions to bomb the hell out of the enemy. Perhaps preventing units killed by artillery or bombers during the first cycle of combat from retaliating?

Carrier Group- Obviously this one would probably be shared with Japan and give bonuses of some kind to Carriers.

Amphibious Operations- Basically the marine national advantage from the 2004 game.

Air Superiority- Don’t know exactly how to represent this but consider events like the battle of the bulge. Once the weather cleared the American air force made it impossible for German vehicles to operate during the day. Maybe if you have more air units involved in a land combat enemy armor, artillery, and mechanized units couldn’t attack/defend during the first cycle of combat?

Aerial Convoy Defense- Would represent the use of airbases to protect convoys against subs. Basically give planes the ability to attack subs without a destroyer present.

Daytime Strategic Bombing - Something to give additional damage to American bombardments.

The British, by contrast may have a Nighttime bombing doctrine that would reduce the damage done but render the bombers immune from enemy interception.
Germany may have something like a night fighters doctrine that could undermine that advantage, but if they are using that then they aren’t getting the benefits of, say, Blitzkrieg.

These are just a few examples. Since only one Doctrine card would be allowed at a time, each country (besides China) would at least need 1 land, air, and naval doctrine to choose from. the Majors would need more, of course. That way doctrines would be a major choice. Will Germany really try to contest control of the seas and skies or will she focus on Russia. Will America focus on its air force (okay, that was technically part of the army then), its navy, or its army?

Obviously if I go this route and add doctrines as a unique card, I should probably take the suggestion of allowing people to draw one of each card type. Or maybe just let them draw five cards of any type at the start. America, for instance, wouldn’t have as many puppet cards as the Axis.

I’m still not certain if its worth trying to come up with a handful of doctrines for each country or just keep these as national advantages.

[knp7765]

Your “Aerial Convoy Defense” idea just gave me an idea for it.  How about, instead of allowing fighters to attack subs without a destroyer present, we could do this:

When enemy sub(s) are in sea zones with convoy symbols adjacent to your territories, each fighter you have in that territory will nullify the convoy damage from one sub.
Example:  By the way, I use the standard convoy raiding system = German subs - 3 IPCs, all other subs = 2 IPCs, Warships = 1 IPC.  I don’t like the dice roll for damage system.
Germany has 2 submarines in SZ 109, which would cost England 6 IPCs in convoy losses (3 IPCs per sub).  England has 1 fighter based on England and 1 fighter based on Scotland.  Since SZ 109 is adjacent to both territories, both fighters can be counted.  Each fighter nullifies the effect of 1 sub’s damage.  2 fighters vs 2 subs = 0 IPCs convoy damage for England.

This would make this advantage more of an economic boost rather than a straight combat boost.  Also, you could still use your fighters for other stuff (attacks, defense, scrambling and interceptors).  As long as the fighters land back on those territories, they will still nullify the subs’ convoy damage to that sea zone.
I suppose you could include tac bombers as well as fighters.  Not sure about strat bombers.  What do you think?

[dannyboy2016]

That may be a good way of doing it. Will have to consider it.

[dannyboy2016]

Taking a break from the Soviets for a moment, I’m going to make some suggestions to flesh out the concept of doctrine cards. I’ll probably go with the suggestion of being able to start with one at the beginning of the game. Only one Doctrine card may be played at a time. However it should cost a significant amount of money to change doctrines (ie 20 ipc range). When you change a doctrine the older one will be moved back into your hand.

While doctrines will be broken up into land, Air, and Naval doctrines, you still only get 1 doctrine card in play at any time.

Proposed German Military Land Doctrines

Elastic Defense Doctrine - In an elastic defense, the front line would be held by a minimal number of troops (to minimize the number of men exposed to artillery fire). During an attack, these troops would retreat. Reserves, who would be stationed nearby but beyond artillery range, would then counterattack and retake the front line.

Effect: Enemy artillery and supported infantry may not attack during the first cycle of a ground combat.

Schwerpunkt- Schwerpunkt refers to a center of gravity or point of maximum effort, where a decisive action could be achieved. The principle of Schwerpunkt enabled the attacker to win numerical superiority at the point of the main effort, which in turn gave the attacker tactical and operational superiority even though the attacker may be numerically and strategically inferior along the entire front.

Effect: If a German army is superior in size to any army it is attacking, then all enemy land forces may not retaliate during the first cycle of combat.

Kesselschlacht- Kesselschlacht (or Cauldron battles) were a concentric attack on encircled forces earlier bypassed by the Schwerpunkt attack(s). It was here that most losses were inflicted upon the enemy, primarily through the capture of prisoners and weapons

Effect: If any enemy land units are encircled (meaning that all surrounding territories are either sea zones or are controlled by enemy or Neutral powers) then they defend at -1 for the duration of combat. This includes units just encircled because of combat operations Germany made previously during its turn.

Blitzkreig- Blitzkrieg, meaning “lightning war”, in its strategic means is associated with a series of quick and decisive short battles to deliver a knockout blow to an enemy state before it could fully mobilize. The tactical meaning of blitzkrieg involves a coordinated military effort by tanks, mobilized infantry, artillery and aircraft, to create an overwhelming local superiority in combat power, to overwhelm an enemy and break through its lines.

Effect: German tanks, Mechanized infantry, and Tactical Bombers attack twice during the first cycle of combat.

Kampfgruppe- The Kampfgruppe was an ad-hoc combined arms formation, usually employing combination of tanks, infantry, and artillery (including anti-tank) elements, generally organised for a particular task or operation. A Kampfgruppe could range in size from a corps to a company , but the most common was an Abteilung (battalion)-sized formation.

Effect: If German tanks, Mechanized infantry, infantry, and artillery are present in a territory then they all attack at +1 for the first cycle of combat.

Volksstrum- Volkssturm (literally people’s storm) drew inspiration from the old Prussian Landsturm of 1813-15, that fought in the liberation wars against Napoleon, mainly as guerrilla forces. Plans to form a Landsturm national militia in Eastern Germany as a last resort to boost fighting strength initially came from General Heinz Guderian in 1944. Because the Wehrmacht was lacking manpower to stop the Soviet advance, men in jobs not deemed necessary or previously deemed unfit for military service were now called under arms.

Effect: German infantry cost 1 ipc less.

[Ghost One]

they all sound very good! will you choose only one for the land doctrine or two or more?

[dannyboy2016]

Only one doctrine of any type at a time.
So by choosing one of those land doctrines, say, Germany will be giving up opportunities to utilize say a wolfpack doctrine.

[Ghost One]

Nice  :-D i like that only one doctrine at a time, not one at a time for land air and sea at the same time. it will make long term goals more important and more of a concern. but when i asked i meant will there be only one doctrine for land air and sea doctrine to choose from for each country?

[dannyboy2016]

I’m going to try to make multiple doctrines for each branch of the armed services for each major. Obviously, China will not be getting any naval doctrines and there isn’t much sense in, say, loading Australia up with multiple different doctrines per each branch of its military.

The big 5 should at least get a few doctrines for each branch, though the USSR will be more focused on land while Japan will have more naval options, for instance.
I think the USA will probably have the most diverse set overall given that it fought essentially two different wars at once.

[dannyboy2016]

Ghost one, did you get my pm about reading materials?

[Ghost One]

Yes i sent you a reply  :-)

*is Italy truly just a minor in the axis? i know their military was under trained and under equipped and outdated, but to keep the game at more of a balance shouldn’t they be given a little more? after all they do start the war with a relatively large military and navy in the med. i feel Italy should be given almost as much as Germany or Japan because they have the opportunity to become a major within the first 2-3 turns and should they become a major they should have the same tools as the other axis. maybe I’m wrong.

[dannyboy2016]

@Ghost:

Yes i sent you a reply  :-)

*is Italy truly just a minor in the axis? i know their military was under trained and under equipped and outdated, but to keep the game at more of a balance shouldn’t they be given a little more? after all they do start the war with a relatively large military and navy in the med. i feel Italy should be given almost as much as Germany or Japan because they have the opportunity to become a major within the first 2-3 turns and should they become a major they should have the same tools as the other axis. maybe I’m wrong.

Its true that Italy does have big potential. It can easily get up to around 50ipcs a turn. So it will certainly have more cards than the Anzacs and China. However, it’ll be a little harder to come up with good cards for them versus the big 5. So they probably won’t have as much choices as Germany or Japan. But Il Duce will have choices.

[Ghost One]

you are right Italy was nocked out of the war so fast they have not as much history or as many events to make cards from :|

[Ghost One]

how are the cards coming? i know you might be busy. do you have any new documents to show or a progress report so we can get an idea of were you will need ideas next for the cards.  :-)