Adapting A&A1914 rules for G40

[ossel]

I know there was some discussion on this a while back, but I’d really like to start testing throwing some of the special rules that were created for 1914 into Global1940 or any of the other of the WWII games.

Here are some initial thoughts:

Contested territories
So this was one of the key features of 1914 that made it feel distinctly WWI. While I don’t think this can be adapted as is, I think it might be worthwhile to look at maybe using it like this:

If a battle goes on for more than 3 rounds, return all combat units to the map and reduce the defender’s IPC rating by the value of the territory. The territory remains contested, and must be treated as hostile by both sides for the purpose of movement. On the defender’s turn, they may move units into the territory in the Combat Movement phase, and must resolve the combat in their Resolve Combat phase.

Mines
I don’t think that mines should be present every time a ship passes through a sea zone with a naval base like in 1914, but maybe add a rule that ships must roll for mines when participating in an amphibious assault on a territory with a naval base.

Dogfighting
I really liked this aspect of 1914, that there was some attempt at representing the fight for air supremacy in battle, instead of just assuming that planes would take on an air-to-ground role. Maybe in G40, limit dogfighting to 1-2 rounds before the main battle starts, and have some bonus for the side that gains air supremacy.

[1Bean432]

The idea to create units in contested territory’s would be amazing.

Think about it:

We could have a Stalingrad
There ‘could’ be a much bigger battle for France
Sea-lion would be very difficult
China would be awesome

Anyway.

3 rounds for combat is a bit much. A single round is just fine.
We just need to add some blitzkrieg mechanics for everyone.

I like the mines, but ships in G40 are much more expensive than their 1914 counter-parts. Mines will be much more devastating.

I liked the dog-fighting as well. But it should be as many rounds as it needs to be.
Any and all bombers should not be allowed to participate in ground bombing until your side gains air-supremacy.
If you are unable to get air-supremacy, then all remaining enemy fighters get to shoot at your bombers @1. After that, all bombers are considered to have retreated.

[ossel]

@1Bean432:

The idea to create units in contested territory’s would be amazing.

Think about it:

We could have a Stalingrad
There ‘could’ be a much bigger battle for France
Sea-lion would be very difficult
China would be awesome

Anyway.

3 rounds for combat is a bit much. A single round is just fine.
We just need to add some blitzkrieg mechanics for everyone.

I like the mines, but ships in G40 are much more expensive than their 1914 counter-parts. Mines will be much more devastating.

I liked the dog-fighting as well. But it should be as many rounds as it needs to be.
Any and all bombers should not be allowed to participate in ground bombing until your side gains air-supremacy.
If you are unable to get air-supremacy, then all remaining enemy fighters get to shoot at your bombers @1. After that, all bombers are considered to have retreated.

What do you mean by “create units?” The concept in 1914 was sort of more along the lines of leaving a battle unresolved, as opposed to rolling it out until the end like traditional A&A. I was suggesting that if the battle went on for 3 attacker/defender rolls (that number can be tweaked, but I don’t think it should be 1), it would mean that both sides were too well dug in (a la Stalingrad) and that the battle would remain unresolved.

[1Bean432]

@ossel:

@1Bean432:

The idea to create units in contested territory’s would be amazing.

Think about it:

We could have a Stalingrad
There ‘could’ be a much bigger battle for France
Sea-lion would be very difficult
China would be awesome

Anyway.

3 rounds for combat is a bit much. A single round is just fine.
We just need to add some blitzkrieg mechanics for everyone.

I like the mines, but ships in G40 are much more expensive than their 1914 counter-parts. Mines will be much more devastating.

I liked the dog-fighting as well. But it should be as many rounds as it needs to be.
Any and all bombers should not be allowed to participate in ground bombing until your side gains air-supremacy.
If you are unable to get air-supremacy, then all remaining enemy fighters get to shoot at your bombers @1. After that, all bombers are considered to have retreated.

What do you mean by “create units?” The concept in 1914 was sort of more along the lines of leaving a battle unresolved, as opposed to rolling it out until the end like traditional A&A. I was suggesting that if the battle went on for 3 attacker/defender rolls (that number can be tweaked, but I don’t think it should be 1), it would mean that both sides were too well dug in (a la Stalingrad) and that the battle would remain unresolved.

Ok, ok i should of been clearer

I meant you could still create units from factories in contested territory’s. Since Stalingrad has a factory, the battle could potentially become just like its real life counterpart.

Being able to create units at these contested territory’s (that have factories) for a country like Russia is a big bonus.

As for the multi-round battle thing, battles either end in a single round, or go on, and on.

If a player is unable to roll enough dice to 1 hit all the defenders units, then the battle would clearly be epic enough to last a bit longer than 3 rounds.

To offset the slow going of 1 round combats, there should be a blitzkrieg/breakthrough mechanic.

[ossel]

Ok, gotcha. Yeah, Stalingrad would be awesome.

I still hold that battles should be longer than one round; simply to avoid those situations in 1914 where the dice land bad and there is one infantry left holding a tt against an entire army…but maybe if the blitz/breakthrough rules are good enough it could offset it.

[Gargantua]

I like the concept, but this is going to bog things down to the point that the Axis doesn’t stand a chance.

They need to make quick gains in order to win.

France will have an income for 2 or 3, or possibly 4 turns.

[ossel]

@Gargantua:

I like the concept, but this is going to bog things down to the point that the Axis doesn’t stand a chance.

They need to make quick gains in order to win.

France will have an income for 2 or 3, or possibly 4 turns.

Yeah, that’s my only worry. However much the 1914 version accurately depicted WWI combat, the game plays incredibly SLOW (justifiably so), and this simply wasn’t the case in WWII. However, there were instances (Stalingrad is one) where offensives got bogged down for longer periods of time. The rule would need to be crafted such that it accurately represented what actually happened.

[1Bean432]

@ossel:

@Gargantua:

I like the concept, but this is going to bog things down to the point that the Axis doesn’t stand a chance.

They need to make quick gains in order to win.

France will have an income for 2 or 3, or possibly 4 turns.

Yeah, that’s my only worry. However much the 1914 version accurately depicted WWI combat, the game plays incredibly SLOW (justifiably so), and this simply wasn’t the case in WWII. However, there were instances (Stalingrad is one) where offensives got bogged down for longer periods of time. The rule would need to be crafted such that it accurately represented what actually happened.

If an attack force attacks a defending force that has a lower number of total troops than the attacking force, then the defending force can suffer a ‘breakthrough’

Any attacking Tank that rolls a hit during combat is able to ‘breakthrough’ and can move to any adjacent territory, and conduct battle again.
A tank can only breakthrough once per turn

Mech Infantry are allowed to make breakthroughs on a 1:1 ratio with tanks.

Or maybe there could be an ‘overrun’ mechanic.
Where the attacker can choose to suffer from more casualties, for more rounds of dice rolling.
This would stop the awkward ‘1 remaining Infantry squad stops 2 entire armies for 6 more months’ thing.

[Yavid]

I really like the dog fighting rules for G40

[Flashman]

I think 3 rounds max is about right. It reflects the greater mobility of forces in this war.

It forces the attacker to calculate how many units he needs to send in to complete the victory within 3 combat rounds and hold on to at least contested status, rather than using just enough to win the battle “eventually”.

This in turn means (usually) concentrating on one big attack per round, rather than just enough to take 3 or 4 tts in unlimited combats. I would also combine this with collect income moved to the start of a player’s turn. Overall I think the “one big attack” is more historical than 3 or 4 money grabs in tts you’ll probably lose immediately. It forces players to think a little further ahead, which makes it a better game as well as better play strategically.

Regarding dog fights, perhaps it should be optional for the defender to send up aircraft to contest supremacy; he might decide to forgoe the advantage to save his airforce.

Regarding balance, perhaps it exaggerates inital Axis advantage in that it is easier for them to assemble forces large enough to win 3 round combats, and takes the Allies rather longer to concentrate armies large enough to do so; that is its much harder for the Allies to take back what the Axis conquers, thus extending the “tipping point” beyond which the Axis has effectively lost its chance.

[Flashman]

Few more thoughts:

Do we still allow attacker retreats i.e. strafing? Or must the attack be followed through.

Depends a lot on how aircraft are handled. In this version they must be able to land back in controlled tt, otherwise no aircraft in naval battles, which is silly. But that invites what become in effect strafing attacks, as you can attack with massed aircraft to kill off defenders, then land your precious planes well back behind the front line leaving a few infantry to contest the tt.

Should attacking planes even be permitted to land in newly contested areas; maybe the infrastructure needed for air units to operate is considered too complex to allow this.

[ossel]

Good to hear from you Flash, I know you had proposed something similar to this earlier this year.

Yeah, I definitely think that aircraft shouldn’t be able to stay in a contested tt (besides, they couldn’t land there even if they did take the territory). This does leave the problem of leaving contested tt’s very vulnerable to counterattack. Perhaps adding a “scramble” rule for adjacent tt’s might help. Definitely something to consider.

Just out of curiosity, what’s your basis for having collect income at the beginning of the turn?

[Flashman]

Essentially to eliminate the anomaly of tts that change hands generating double (or more) the income in a round, and the “money grab” attacks on tts you have no real hope of retaining - that is you should have to hold a tt an entire round to collect money from it.

Admittedly the problem is not as acute using contested tt rules, that is in general tts that are fought over now tend to generate less income, which is surely more realistic.

But CT rules need a major rethink for WWII in regard to aircraft movement and landing restrictions.

[ossel]

@Flashman:

But CT rules need a major rethink for WWII in regard to aircraft movement and landing restrictions.

I don’t know why it has to be super complicated. The OOB rules state that even if the tt is captured, aircraft have to land in a previously-owned territory. I would treat contested tt’s the same way.

The reason this wasn’t the case in 1914 was that the contested tt’s were supposed to represent heavily entrenched areas that stayed stagnant for months at a time.

In the case of WWII, the back-and-forth is normal; here we are using contested tt’s to represent areas where the defender is dug in, or the attacker doesn’t have the resolve or the resources to completely push the enemy back.

I’ll have to look at a couple of scenarios to see how it all plays out, but I think it’s acceptable for aircraft to fall back. If anything, not falling back would be too much of an advantage for the attacker, and people might aim to end up with contested tt’s just to keep their air power on the front lines.

[Flashman]

Only a fool leaves aircraft on his front lines.

The point is you could use aircraft to impose contested status on a tt with very little risk to your own units. This changes the whole dynamic of CTs and needs to be tested a lot.

[ossel]

I see what you’re saying I guess…A player could send 10 fighters and 1 inf into a tt, choose the aircraft as casualties and leave the inf to contest…but why would anyone do that? The tt is then vulnerable and he doesn’t receive income for it anyway. Maybe I don’t see what you’re saying.

I’m not sure if this helps the issue you’re bringing up, but on the subject of dogfights, it might be interesting to have each player separate their air forces into an “air superiority” group and a “ground support” group, resolving the air superiority battle first and applying bonuses to the ground . Perhaps restrict bombers to ground support, and have tactical bombers be able to participate in both. I’ll have to think about this one, just spitballing here.

[Yavid]

another problem with your scenario is your losing how many ipcs in fighters to gain what 2, 3 ipcs for the one turn?

[Flashman]

Remember we’re dealing with a rule where the combat last a maximum of 3 rounds.

Of course you’re not sending in just 1 infantry - you’d use enough to soak up hits and leave 1 behind to contest - the important thing is your fighters can score big hits and then in effect retreat beyond enemy range, something that does not apply in 1914 rules.

Another big difference is in tanks - since you cannot straff they will always be left vulnerable to counter attack, so its questionable if they’re worth buying over fighters.

You wouldn’t gain any ipcs, since you only collect at the start of a turn. The point is to deny the enemy income by contesting several tts with hit and run(fly away) attacks.

[ossel]

The point I’m trying to make is that currently you can do this anyway. Nothing in the current ruleset is stopping you from grabbing 3 or 4 tt’s with air power and then pulling all of your planes back to safe territories. And honestly, the number of battles that are going to end up contested will be low (and if not, the max number of combat rounds needs to be tweaked), so I don’t see this making much of a difference.

I also want to work on adding an air superiority combat phase anyway; I’ll be posting my initial stabs at these rule adaptations in the House Rules forum soon.

[Razor]

I am thinking among the same lines myself.

CONTESTET TERRITORIES
I figure the attacker should have 3 options. After the first round he can press attack, stay or retreat. Just as in the real war, it should be your choice if you want to continue the attack until the territory is conquered, or you want to stop the battle but stay in the territory to contest it, or just retreat. Remember that a territory is large as a country, and a turn is 3 months, and there was no phase during the real WWII where Germany or Russia vacated Poland with a small force, just to trade it back and forth, like we usually see in A&A games.

THE BATTLEBOARD
The 1914 Battleboard is perfect for WWII. G40 infantry should att at 2 and def at 3, because a 1940 infantry division had a lot more firepower than the 1914 infantry counterpart. And the 1940 tank should absorb two hits, because the maneuver warfare tactic was to break through the enemy line at the weak point, and then cut off the enemy supply, and this made few casualties but big surrenders. On the other hand, the classic assault with artillery barrage and infantry charges was a meat grinder with lots of casualties, and no surrender. So yes, artillery hit on 4 or less, they are the King of the battlefield, and tank hit on 2 but can absorb 2 hits.

DOGFIGHT
Yes, you must fight for air superiority before the ground battle. I think fighters should cost 6 or 8, and att 1 and def 2, both in air combat and later in ground strafing. This will be historically correct. Then the Stuka can hit ground units on a 3, or on a 4 if combined with a tank. And the bomber should carpet bombard huge infantry stacks, maybe like the classic AA gun, roll one dice for each inf, every 1 a hit. I also believe that an airbase should be able to scramble 3 fighters to an adjacent territory under attack, and not just seazones.

AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULTS
I love the 1914 rule that give the defending artillery a preemptive roll against amphibious assaulting ground units. This is exactly how it was on Dday and every other landing during both WWs. Maybe even the inf should attack on 1 in the first round of a landing, since the tanks don’t absorb hits when wading ashore. Then we can have Marines that still attack on 2 during landings