Adapting A&A1914 rules for G40

[Flashman]

Shouldn’t WWII tanks be able to absorb hits on defence as well as attack?

Also think ships should have the option to “retreat” even if they eliminate the enemy; why would they stay in open waters when they can return to home port and be repaired & reinforced?

Last man standing rule to apply; unit must remain to retain control of original enemy tt; otherwise reverts to original owner.

Doesn’t two space movement (or similar) make mech infantry redundant?

I think a fix is needed for one unit contesting a tt holding up a huge enemy stack - just about possible in WWI but not the more mobile war that followed.

[ossel]

@Flashman:

I think a fix is needed for one unit contesting a tt holding up a huge enemy stack - just about possible in WWI but not the more mobile war that followed.

The way I imagine it, it’s more of a thin line of defenders who have just barely broken enemy morale, who then fall back to their lines, as opposed to one single unit holding off a horde of enemies for a sustained period of time a la Thermopylae.

[Razor]

@Flashman:

Shouldn’t WWII tanks be able to absorb hits on defence as well as attack?

No, they absorb 2 hits because of the encircle tactic, which produce less casualties than the classic trench warfare, and not because they got armor, like the 2 hit battleship.

Attached are to pics,
Pic 1 is of the classic infantry attack with artillery barrage, and this is a meat grinder with lots of casualties

Pic 2 is of the modern maneuver warfare, where tanks break through the enemy line at the flanks, cut the supply line and encircle the dug in enemy, forcing them to surrender. This make less casualties to the attacker, and this is why the attacking tank absorb two hits

[Flashman]

Yes, but in WWII tanks were much more valuable on the defence. Firepower needs to be taken into account, and the ability to stop enemy attacks - like the Germans running into KV1s in Russia that their shells couldn’t knock out.

[Razor]

Yes, maybe a defending tank should deny one matching attacking tank the two hit absorb

Or tanks defend on 4 or less

[ossel]

In my personal opinion, tanks in 1914 had the “hit soaking” ability because they didn’t have the advantages of tanks in the WWII games…namely speed and increased firepower. I don’t really think it’s necessary to add this ability to the WWII game.

In regards to planes landing in contested tt’s, as I’ve pointed out before in this thread, planes can NEVER land in a newly captured territory anyway, so I’m not sure how a territory remaining contested could ever make it easier for aircraft to land there. Just stick to treating contested territories as hostile for the purpose of movement and it resolves a lot of the issues that arise from the WWII rules (blitzing, etc.).

[Razor]

@ossel:

, so I’m not sure how a territory remaining contested could ever make it easier for aircraft to land there.

No, I totally disagree. An Axis & Allies territory represent a very large area, in some times an entire country. And a turn represent 3 to 6 months. It would be crazy if the real world Hitler told his generals that, yes we occupied Poland this year, but we have to wait until next year to land aircrafts there, due to rules and regulations.

Lets take Norway, it is one territory on the AA map. In the real war attack on April 9 1940, German mountain troops captured two airfields in Southern Norway on day one, and they started to use this airfields from day one. They even landed heavy Bombers there, like the Condor, from day one. The other day, UK started to use the Norwegian airfields, and they landed bombers there too, even if Norway was a contested country. So why do you want a game rule that is absolutely far away from what is possible in a real war ?

I could go with your rule, if Airbases was allowed to scramble defending fighters into adjacent territories under attack, since that too was pretty common during WWII, but I bet you don’t wanna allow that either

[ossel]

For your first point, I agree with the fact that the OOB G40 rules don’t necessary reflect reality in regards to landing aircraft. I didn’t realize you were promoting completely scrapping the “no landing in newly captured tt’s” rule. I was simply saying that if you were keeping the OOB rules, it doesn’t make sense to not allow planes to land in contested tt’s and not newly captured tt’s.

As far as the scrambling rule, I’ve always thought that they should be able to scramble to land attacks. In fact, here is a house rule I use:

Scrambling is a special movement that the defender can make at the end of the Combat Move phase. It must be done after all of the attacker’s combat movements have been completed and all attacks have been declared. The attacker may not change any combat movements or attacks after the defender has scrambled.

The new version of this rule allows players to scramble fighters to adjacent land zones as well as sea zones.

A quick reaction team of no more than 3 defending fighters and tactical bombers (strategic bombers can’t scramble) located in a territory that has an operative air base can be scrambled to defend against attacks in the sea zones or territories adjacent to those territories. These air units can be scrambled to help friendly units in adjacent sea zones or territories that have come under attack.

It’s basically a small re-write of the rule in the book.

[Razor]

My apologies, your houserule that allows players to scramble fighters to adjacent land zones as well as sea zones is a winner. This is the way A&A OOB rules should have been from the start, and I don’t figure why its not. Must be some balancing consideration. Maybe fighters become too powerful. Anyway, this rule should be the standard.

Yes, I want to allow aircrafts to land in newly captured territories as well as contested territories. If you have a land unit there, then you can land a plane there.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Razor:

@Flashman:

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.

Since a turn is 3 or 4 months, then yes a fighter should be allowed to land in the grain field on a newly contested area, just as they did in the real war. But a big Bomber should always need an airbase. Bombers don’t land on carriers either.

and as I said in my previous post, an airbase should be able to scramble 3 defending fighters into an adjacent territory too, and not just into seazones. And with fighters att at 1 and def on 2, they will not upset the balancing.

I find this idea very interesting.
From a game consistency perspective it is very strange that any airplane cannot scramble to protect an adjacent land territory but can do for an adjacent SZ.
Good point.

Is it the first time someone thought about it?

[Razor]

@Baron:

From a game consistency perspective it is very strange that any airplane cannot scramble to protect an adjacent land territory but can do for an adjacent SZ.

In the first edition of Pacific 40 you could scramble from islands only, and at that time up to 6 fighters. After in depth discussions at the designers forum, he fixed it so for later editions you can scramble from land too, and not just islands. But now the limit is 3 fighters only, for balancing issues.

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks for the historical origins of the rule on scrambling planes.

My question was more on this line of reasoning about scrambling planes from AirBase for adjacent ground territory.

Is it on this thread that this idea get a first appear?

[Razor]

@ossel:

the “no landing in newly captured tt’s” rule.

That rule has always bothered me. If you capture Ukraine, your planes cant land there that turn. But you can land Italian planes there, or even Japanese planes. I never got the fully grasp of this. Everything in a turn are supposed to happen simultaneous. So why are German fighters not allowed to defend their own infantry and tanks in newly captured Ukraine against the Russian counterattack, when Italian and Japanese fighters are ? Beats me.

You could say it is a balancing issue, but then your allied planes should not be allowed to land in your newly captured territory neither. If Germany capture Ukraine in turn 5, then Italian and Japanese planes should not be allowed to land there that turn, since the German planes are not allowed. The current OOB rule don’t make sense.

Luckily the 1914 OOB rules are far more realistic than the G40 rules, so we should start to play by that rulebook, with some modifications to make it fit WWII. Of course the G40 fighters must move 4 spaces, and not 2. But fighters should always be allowed to land in newly captured and contested territories.

[Razor]

@Baron:

My question was more on this line of reasoning about scrambling planes from AirBase for adjacent ground territory.

Is it on this thread that this idea get a first appear?

No, the first suggestions for AirBases to scramble into ground territories come in Larry Harris game design forum back in 2009 when A&A Pacific 40 was released the first time, and people did not understand why only islands could scramble. The designer turned down the idea for balancing reasons

[baron Münchhausen]

@Razor:

I am thinking among the same lines myself.

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.

You should imagine that the actual OOB fighter A3D4C10M4 was played in the older version more like the Stuka. Because of his high defense value at 4 against all ground units.

The newly introduced Tactical Bomber A3-4D3C11M4 need more fine tuning.

If you want a changing paradigm to develop something new for Dogfight, just put on the Tactical Bomber sculpt the combat value of the classic fighter. Then lower the price and combat value of fighter: to get it cheaper but still effective due to cost reduction.

1914G40 Adapted Tactical Bomber: A3D4M4C10 You can keep the +1A offensive bonus with Fg or Tank.

Left to find some combat values for 1914G40 adapted fighter A?D?M4C?.
Able to do a good dogfighting.

---

About Strategical Bomber:

If like AAA, @1 it should be limited to 3 or 4 Infantries to keep a kind of parity with the OOB A4.
StB A1(x3-4)D1M6C12, but on every attack each bomber can target up to 3-4 grounds units, if there is less than 3-4 ground units, then it is limited to up to 1 roll/ground unit.
This limitation is for 1 StB, another StB will get another up to 4 ground targets.

And this imply that 1 Inf on a territory, attacked by 2 StBs will receive only 2 @1 attacking rolls.
It can simulates the difficulty of targeting scarcely dispersed troops on a given territory.

Probably limited to 3 Infantries is more balance because 1 StB can sometimes hit more than 1 unit.
And have some similitude with the classic heavy bomber which gave 3 rolls.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Razor:

I am thinking among the same lines myself.

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.

About this point, there was a lot of discussion to find a balanced cost and combat value I put on my thread on this specific topic, based on a general discussion develop by the G40e thread.

Here is a similar idea to add to your brainstorm, you can take a broad look to find some inspirations (many of my posts doesn’t need to be read in details, too much maths in it, just go to conclusion unless you want more explanations about statistical balance):
@Baron:

All the numerous exchange on Air Patrol and Scramble phase from the Uncrustable’s G40 Enhanced thread made me think about this alternative mechanics to get a more historical/tactical flavour with aircrafts inside the combat phase resolution.

Here it is:
Fg A2D2M4C8 All hit destroy an enemy planes, if there is any. Get +1A/D when there is no enemy planes (Air Supremacy bonus).

AAA as OOB, always make Preemptive strike (before first round of reg combat) vs enemy planes.

Here is my addition:
TcB A3D3M4C10, TBR, paired with Fg or Arm get +1A. Or
Get +1A/D when there is no enemy planes (Air Supremacy bonus).
Maximum: A4D4.

My slightly different version:
Fg A2D2M4C8 Always hit an enemy planes first, if there is any. Get +1A/D when there is no enemy planes (Air Supremacy bonus).

As I said on my previous post, you can see how combat value are reversed on defense vs OOB:
When getting Air Supremacy: Fg A3D3 while TcB A4D4.

This way with Fighter presence, there is no need for a dedicated air-to-air combat phase.
The battle can be simultaneous with the ground combat.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Razor:

@Baron:

My question was more on this line of reasoning about scrambling planes from AirBase for adjacent ground territory.

Is it on this thread that this idea get a first appear?

No, the first suggestions for AirBases to scramble into ground territories come in Larry Harris game design forum back in 2009 when A&A Pacific 40 was released the first time, and people did not understand why only islands could scramble. The designer turned down the idea for balancing reasons

Sad, it didn’t pass the test.
I find your idea quite interesting:

@Razor:

an airbase should be able to scramble 3 defending fighters into an adjacent territory too, and not just into seazones. And with fighters att at 1 and def on 2, they will not upset the balancing.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Razor:

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

I suggest that marines is able to attack even if the preemptive artillery shot get a hit on them.

But, a 4 IPCs Marines unit (A2D2M1) are a complex matter because you have artillery unit A2D2M1C4 +1A to Inf.
As a kind of infantry, Marines should get the regular artillery +1 bonus on attack, but this put them A3, which is too much.

@toblerone77:

Basically Baron the marines in the A&A series IMO have been crap and nonsensical.  A cost of four is too high in the mechanics of the game when it essentially has worse stats than artillery. So you have to give it an advantage that artillary does not have. Its fire power, mobility or special ability. It HAS to be worth buying and apply to it’s historical role. The marines were powerful because they could respond rapidly via the USN. Making a marine that can do the same thing for more money or less for more money just doesn’t work for me. So I don’t know they have to have an advantage that makes sense. I can add marines for flavor from HBG which is fine. The OT was to design a marine unit which was cost effective and worth while. I personally don’t get overly hung up on absolute balance with this game. I try to go big picture.

So I don’t know I don’t think your idea is bad but personally if I’m buying essentially a regular infantry unit to get a combined forces roll of two or less for a couple rounds I’m not buying. Marines should be cheap and powerful under the right circumstance IMO

Maybe, on first round of an amphibious assault, friendly Artillery cannot provide +1A bonus to Infantry and can be destroyed preemptively.

So, any Marines unit could be immune to all first round’s penalty of amphibious assault. Still getting the +1A Artillery bonus on first round.
Making Marines A1+1(from Art bonus, if any survived the first strike of artillery)D2M1C4.

Maybe you can also considered that any DD, Cruiser or BB paired 1:1 to Marines unit give +1A on first round only.
Maybe even Cruiser and BB can give this +1A paired bonus for the first and the second round, because they have a specific bombard capacity ?
Kind of special support from warships toward “their special infantry units: marines”
This bonus should be given regardless of naval combat action in the SZ.
Here is the source:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22292.msg1101629#msg1101629

Example:
So, even after a naval battle, 1 DD and 1 cruiser survived and 3 marines +1 artillery get ashore after, the 2 marines would get A2 (from warships) and the last will also get A2 (A1+1 from art), for the first round, if the artillery units survived the preemptive shots.

While ordinary infantry would have stay A1, be subject to preemptive artillery fire and get +1 bonus only after the first round.

---

In addition, if marines are immune to first strike penalty of amphibious assault, it become understandable that during this first round, Marines should be taken as primary casualties in a mix of Marines and Inf invading party.
Because Infantry can only made his attack if they survived the artillery first strike.

Maybe the defending first strike should be extended to 1 defending Infantry unit in addition to all defending Artillery units.
(There was always people in the bunkers waiting the shore invasion.)
In this manner, 1 Marines unit can always be a useful unit (even on a weaker, Inf only, defended tts) to take this preemptive casualty but being able to make an attack roll nonetheless.

Is it enough to justify a 4 IPCs unit which have the same basic combat value as an Inf A1D2M1?
IDK. But I think it is a start.

[baron Münchhausen]

On Amphibious assault

In addition to the first strike from all defending Art, [and 1 Infantry unit].

You can have this extended penalty applied on first round for all attacking ground units: no applicable special bonus.
So Tank cannot give +1A to TacB on the first round.
Artillery cannot give +1A to Inf. or MechInf
Mechanized Infantry cannot receive bonus from Art.
Infantry cannot receive bonus from Art.

As said above,
Marines doesn’t suffer any of these penalties.
Maybe, to get interesting,
Marines should also get an additionnal +1A during an amphibious assault.
(In this case, however, Art then keeps the first round penalty. )
Able to receive up to A3, combining up to 2 capacities with the basic A1:
+1A paired 1:1 with DD, CA, BB on first round,
+1A paired 1:1 with CA, BB on the second round of amphibious assault.
+1A paired 1:1 with Artillery after the first round and for all the duration of combat.

[Razor]

All great ideas, Baron, good thinking.

To wrap it up, I suggest that all territories under attack should start with a one round air to air combat, or dogfight if you like. Defender should be able to scramble fighters from adjacent territories with airbases. Surviving Strategic Bombers should now conduct a one time SBR on facilities or a one time Carpet bombing of an infantry stack. During Carpet bombing if the AAgun unit miss, then the Bomber roll 3 dice, every 1 a hit, and this is preemptive, the inf are removed immediately. Defending Strategic Bombers originally in the contested territory, that survived the dogfight, also Carpet bomb infantry that attack from an adjacent territory, but not infantry still on the trannies at sea.
Now the bombers land. The fighters and Tacs stay for the general combat.

Naval combat as usual. Planes that was in action during air to air combat can not join the naval battle.

Defending artillery roll one preemptive strike at the landing party, all casualties be removed.

All warships should now be able to do a one time shore bombard, even if they just had a naval battle. If we analyze all landings during WWI and WWII, the battleships were never short of shells, even if they engaged in naval battles before the landings. For simplicity all warships hit on a 2 or less.
Since we now use the 1914 Battleboard where inf attack on 2 and def on 3 etc , we can now make amphibious assaults as difficult as they were in the real war. Let all land units attack on 1 for the first round of combat, and tanks do not absorb hits in the first round, and no combined arms bonuses neither. Remember this guys are wading ashore and need time to get organized for combat.

Marines should hit on 2 or less, and 3 if paired with a warship that can shore bombard. For the next turns they act as  common infantry.

Fighters should strafe land units with A1 and D2, and Tacs with A3 and D4. Tacs should also boost tanks from 2 to 3. But I don’t think air supremacy should ever boost artillery to 4, that’s not how it worked during WWII.

From now its general combat, inf A2 alone, and A3 with artillery support, art A3, tanks A 2 alone, and A3 with Tac support, and absorb two hits. All units should defend on D3 or less.

After every round of land combat, the Attacker should press Attack, Contest or Retreat.
Then the Defender must press Defend, Contest or Retreat. If the defender retreat, he can not roll dice that round, only retreat the surviving units to an adjacent territory that is friendly, and not contested .