Japan National Advantages
1. Tokyo Express
The Japanese High Command used destroyer convoys to ferry infantry. Allied forces at Guadalcanal dubbed this the “Tokyo Express”.
Each of your destroyers may act as a transport for one infantry. These destroyers follow the same rules for loading and offloading units as transports do. Your destroyers can also conduct shore bombardment (using an attack of 2) in an amphibious assault.
2. Kamikaze Attacks (revised)
A terrifying development was the Japanese suicide tactics as a desperate means of slowing the Allied advance. The Japanese used pilots who only knew how to take off and dive into their target with an aircraft full of explosives.
You may make six Kamikaze attacks during the game for free. Kamikazes are not represented by a unit, hence a Kamikaze can not be taken as a casualty. Use a die to keep track on how many Kamikaze remain to be used. These attacks may be launched if an Allied player move ships within 2 sea zones from Japan, after all combat movement has been completed. Kamikaze may target specific enemy ships, except for submarines. They attack on a roll of 2 or less during the opening fire step of the first cycle of combat only. Before you rolls dice to launch a Kamikaze attack, you must announce the target(s) and how many Kamikazes that are participating. If a Kamikaze is used during an allied combat phase this counts as a naval battle and will prevent all ships in that sea zone from conducting shore bombardment.
3. Long Lance Torpedoes (replace Kaiten Torpedoes)
The Japanese Navy possessed superior torpedoes in comparison with its Western counterparts, possessing an unequaled combination of speed, range, and hitting power.
Your submarines attack on a 3 (4 if you have the Super Submarines development) in the opening fire step of combat. This increased attack factor is for the first cycle of combat only.
4. Super Dreadnoughts (replace Lightning Assaults)
Dreadnoughts or leviathans like Yamato and Musashi were the largest and most powerful battleships the world has ever seen.
Your battleships attack (imply shore bombardment) and defend on 5.
5. Dug-In Defenses (revised)
The Japanese introduced the tactic of endurance engagements intended to inflict maximum casualties. This tactic included bunkers and pillboxes connected by tunnels.
All your infantry on islands are immune to shore bombardment and defend on a 3.
6. Banzai Attacks
A fearsome rallying cry of the Imperial Japanese Army, “Banzai!†meant, “May you live ten thousand years.â€
When you begin an attack with only infantry, all those infantry attack on a 2. This also applies to any amphibious assault in which all your attacking units in the land combat (other than those conducting shore bombardment) consist of only infantry.
7. Kaiten Torpedoes
At the start of a sea attack, the Japanese player designates up to two of his submarines as Kaiten.
-In the first cycle of combat, Kaiten hit in the Opening Fire step of combat (meaning, their casualties cannot hit back) - each Kaiten specifies one specific enemy sea unit which it tries to hit (two Kaiten could specify the same target unit, and may declare a secondary target, so if they both target the same thing and the first one hits, the 2nd Kaiten may attempt to destroy the secondary target). Kaiten hit on a 3 in attack and defense (4 in attack with Super Subs). Enemy units cannot hit Kaiten! Instead, they automatically die after the first cycle of combat, whether they have hit or not.
-Kaiten are still subject to destroyer detection. If detected, must first kill a DD first before getting a chance at the primary target.
-You are limited to 2 Kaiten per TURN.
-When declared, place 1 free submarine in either sea zone 60 or 61 during the Mobilize Units phase of this turn only. You may place the submarine even if the sea zone is enemy-occupied.
-Your submarines cost 1IPC less.
8. Naval Advantage
When declared, Japan is given a free 16IPC (i.e. 4 free Minor Tech rolls), which must ALL be used towards developing Minor Tech. IPC’s not spent, or unable to be spent (e.g. Delayed NA) this turn, may be carried over, but must still be used for Minor Tech.
United States National Advantages
1. Lend-Lease Program (replace Island Bases)
During World War II, the U.S. military began administrating what became known as the “lend-lease program”. In this program, the U.S. gifted its allies with an array of military equipment and munitions, including ships.
During your mobilize new units phase, you can convert any U.S. units to equivalent U.K. or Soviet units. The conversion can only take place on an allied territory or in a sea zone adjacent to an allied territory containing an industrial complex. Remove the all affected units from play and replace them with the same unit of your ally’s color.
2. Chinese Divisions
The Chinese had three hundred divisions in 1942. President Roosevelt spent much of the war trying to get Chiang Kai-Shek to do something with them.
During you’re mobilize new units phase, you may place one of your infantry for free in one of the following territories if you control it: China, Sinkiang, or Kwangtung. This free unit is in addition to the group of units you just purchased.
3. Marines
“Send in the Marines!” was a popular U.S. rallying cry in World War II.
Your infantry attack on a 2 in the first cycle of the land combat portion of an amphibious assault. Even if supported by artillery, their attack remains 2.
4. Mechanized Infantry
With its fleet of trucks, the U.S. Army was the most mobile force of soldiers in World War II.
Your infantry have a move of 2 and may blitz as tanks do.
5. Liberty Ship Program (replace Fast Carriers)
In 1941, the U.S. embarked on a massive expansion of the merchant marine fleet under the auspices of the Emergency Shipbuilding Program. The standard Liberty ship was the centerpiece of this program.
Your transports now cost 6 IPC’s.
6. Super fortresses (revised)
The B-29 Super fortress carried the biggest standard bomb load of any wartime bomber.
Your bombers roll one additional die each when conducting a strategic bombing raid.
7. Pacific Divisions
Place 1 free INF/TURN during the Mobilize Units Phase in either Sink, Chi, Kwa, Phi, Alsk or Haw if you control it.
8. Naval Industry
All Naval units cost one less IP for the entire game.
Russia
Non-aggression Treaty
Its obviously unrealistic to have 4 units suddenly appear on the border when one side breaks the treaty. The whole idea is that when you make a surprise attack the other side is not ready to defend.
I think it should be modelled by an IPC fee of say 12. This could model fighting internal resistance of breaking the treaty? Or the slightly reduced morale as civilian feel ashamed?
T34
I think T34 were not strong. They were just mass produced and became cheap and cost effective.
From turn 3 onwards for every purchase of 4 tanks together you get 1 free tank.
Germany
Atlantic Wall
Yes “Norway to Spain” please. Not all gray territories.
Tiger Tank Battalions
Limit of 3 would be good to model the lack of reliability of Tigers. Although I would put it at 4-6. They had much better range than enemy tanks and I reckon we can try opening-fire in first round. Yes definitely no blitz for Tigers.
Fortress Europe
Again lets put it on its historic regions not all gray territories.
Wolf Pack
I am thinking just 2 is bit low. Whats the reason for reducing it from 3?
UK
Radar
Of course radar will be changed accordingly after Antiaircraft changes.
Joint Strike
Of course Joint Strike will be removed accordingly after the round sequeunce changes.
Japan
Kamikaze
I can assure you Kamikaze are not isolated events. The main wave consisted of thousands of attacks. I urge you to not limit Kamikaze attacks to 6 per game. :-(
We should not limit it to 2 SZ within Japan neither. One of the first uses in the war were near Philippines.
And even more different problem is to fit it correctly into the combat sequence. Logically it shouldnt be restricted to opening-fire.
Why we don’t want to make the attack too strong, it has to be cost effective. (compared to enemy naval and compared to if the fighter was in conventional attack)
Dug-In Defenses
I think they need not defend on 3. To model tunnels for example they would be immnue to not only shore bombardment but also air units.
Banzai Attack
Should require overwleming numbers.
Lets say 3 or more infantry. At least 1 more infantry than number of defending land units.
Naval Advantage
lol
US
Liberty Ship Program
I like this one. Its much needed. I hope it fits history though
Pacific Division
This one seems a bit weird. Why?
Nice comments! it will take time to respond to them . Ill get back with you soon.
First of all, let me say how stunned I was when I checked the message boards today and saw a million new posts (ok, ok, a little exaggeration). I thought for a while there that I must have been in the wrong forum. :lol: It’s good to see all that activity. Unfortunately, I don’t know how much I’ll be able to respond to all those topics on account of my work load is picking up for the next couple months and I want to try to get this phase 1 thing done quickly. I’ll probably just end up concentrating all my forum time on the phase 1 stuff and then pick up on the other phases in a couple months. Don’t take my occasional lack of postings as a lack of interest.
Here’s my 2 cents on the Russian NAs while I’m thinking of it:
Russia
Non-aggression Treaty
Its obviously unrealistic to have 4 units suddenly appear on the border when one side breaks the treaty. The whole idea is that when you make a surprise attack the other side is not ready to defend.
I think it should be modelled by an IPC fee of say 12. This could model fighting internal resistance of breaking the treaty? Or the slightly reduced morale as civilian feel ashamed?
I totally agree. How about all attacking units breaking a treaty have to roll 1 die and if it’s a 1 then that unit is converted to the defender’s side? That’s a double whammy because not only would Japan lose some of their units, but Russia would gain what Japan looses. Maybe we should even make it so all Japanese units in a territory bordering a hostile territory have to roll a die and all rolls of 1 have to change nationality to the nationality of the adjacent hostile territory.
T34
I think T34 were not strong. They were just mass produced and became cheap and cost effective.
From turn 3 onwards for every purchase of 4 tanks together you get 1 free tank.
Again, I totally agree. T34s were effective like Sherman’s were effective… much, much better in terms of mass production. I would change it to be 1 free tank for every 3 you purchase in one turn. I would also forget about the ‘until turn 3’ thing for simplicity.
3. Mobile Industry
In response to the threat from the Russian front, the Soviets moved their factories east. They produced 5,000 tanks east of the Urals in 1942.
Your industrial complexes each may move 1 territory during your non combat move phase. It may be used in the same turn to place units (up to a maximum of the new territory’s value). They cannot move during the combat move phase. If an opponent captures them, that opponent cannot move them. You may mobilize at a complex if you controlled both the industrial complex and it’s new territory at the start of your turn.
Note that one of the new IC restrictions was that max number of non-infantry units placed at an IC=number of VCPs. This might not be totally congruent with this NA. Let’s add in to this NA that Russia’s limit of non-infantry purchases per IC outside of VCs is not equal to the number of VCPs, but the number of IPCs of the territory (like what it is in the box rules).
4. Conscripts (replace Salvage)
The Red Army won many battles with their raw manpower, by using untrained infantry and many times unequipped.
During your mobilize new units phase, you may place one of your infantry for free in any red territory if you control it. This free unit is in addition to the group of units you just purchased.
Do we really need this? I think we should try to narrow the list back down to 6, for die purposes.
6. Trans-Siberian Railway
The Trans-Siberian Railway spanned 10,000 kilometers from Moscow to Vladivostok, the longest main line in the world.
In the non combat move phase, your infantry, antiaircraft guns, and artillery may move 2 territories per turn only among these territories: Russia, Novosibirsk, Yakut S.S.R., and Buryatia S.S.R.
They should move 3, not just 2 IMO.
8. Lend-Lease
During your Mobilize Units phase, you can convert up to 12IPC worth of Allied units into Soviet units if they are in a red territory. These may be land or air units. Remove the affected units from play and replace them with the same units of your own color.
-When declared, place 1 free INF in any Red territory you control, during the Mobilize Units phase of this turn only.
Lend-lease will be not just an NA for Russia but a rule in the game that applies to both UK and Russia. Let’s do away with this, IMO.
Don’t take my occasional lack of postings as a lack of interest.
This was something i wanted to post as well. I have somewhat limited time so it does seem that i tend to make things short and sweet. But this project is not a race… The truth of our work remains to be clarified by time and reflection and the project is like a painting. We cannot build this in a day or even a month. It will take many or few months of diligent work to complete. I think we have a new member of our group and he will help us greatly.
We need as many people as we can get on this, especially for the fun stuff like playtesting. :wink:
Here is an idea that satisfies a lot of problems. Every nation has 6 NAs, 1 of which per nation makes 1 type of unit cheaper. The decision as to which unit is the special cheap unit for that nation is made simply to promote a purchasing strategy similar to historical purchases.
Russia NA for T34’s: Armor units cost 4 IPCs
Germany has NA for Subs: Subs cost 6 IPCs
UK has NA for FIGs: FIGs cost 8 IPCs
Japan has NA for transports (maybe called tokyo express but doesn’t apply specifically for DDs anymore?): Transports cost 6 IPCs each
US has NA for DDs or carriers?: DDs cost 10 or carriers cost 14… I think I like the effect on the game of cheap DDs better than cheap carriers.
Remember, I chose the type of unit for each nation based only on promoting a more historical purchasing strategy.
I don’t know how much I’ll be able to respond to all those topics on account of my work load is picking up for the next couple months and I want to try to get this phase 1 thing done quickly. I’ll probably just end up concentrating all my forum time on the phase 1 stuff and then pick up on the other phases in a couple months.
No worries. We’ve broken up into threads when one is busy just focus on what you are most keen about.
tekkyy…… Ok its official your on the team … welcome!
I’m really liking this cheap unit type per nation idea, but I think we should change it a little:
One of Russia’s NAs is that they can buy 1 armor unit per turn for only 3 or 4 IPCs (I haven’t decided yet, depends on the game balance). Any additional armor units per turn costs the usual 5 IPCs each.
Same for Germany’s NA except instead of an armor unit Germany can buy 1 sub unit per turn for only 6 IPCs.
Ditto for UK except instead they can buy 1 FIG per turn for only 8 IPCs.
Ditto except Japan can buy 1 transport per turn for only 6 IPCs.
Ditto for US except they can buy 1 bomber per turn for only 13 IPCs (maybe even just 12 IPCs, but it depends on game balance).
Yes sounds good… but is their a justification for only one or perhaps i may venture a new nation specific price list? I have proposed this on other sites years ago.
I like these rules as well … they may have some value under tech… like underground industry and full mobilization.
Wait a minute, that doesn’t model mass production which has historic importance IMO.
so who else is on the team?
Here is my thinking why it should be limited to 1 cheap unit per turn:
There’s no problem with having unlimited cheap German subs, British fighters, Japanese transports, and US bombers. The reason why is because with all these unit types the logic doesn’t hold that if it’s beneficial to buy 1 cheap unit, then it’s beneficial to spend all/most your money on that cheap unit. Germany can’t buy all subs and win, US can’t buy all bombers and win, etc… What I’m worried about is unlimited cheap Russian armor. If it’s baneful to buy 1 armor because it’s cheap enough, then Russia should probably end up spending all their money on armor.
Obviously, you can’t have unlimited armor at 3 IPCs each. 1 armor per turn at 3 IPCs should be fine because still many infantry will be purchased. I don’t see how 1 armor per turn at 3 IPCs would really make Russia that much stronger, but we’ll never know for sure until playtesting.
The only other option for cheap armor is then armor for 4 IPCs each, either with some per turn limit or not. If we have a per turn limit where armor can be 4 IPCs each, then the worth of that NA would only be approximately 1IPC*(the limit of cheap armor per turn). In the case of 1 per turn, the NA would only be worth at most 1 IPC per turn… not very good compared to the rest of the NAs. This then brings me to why I don’t think unlimited armor at 4 IPCs each would work… If armor costs the same as rtl, then the mass production of armor would cut into the production of rtl. How much rtl would you buy as Russia if you could pay the same for armor? I for one wouldn’t buy a whole lot of rtl, if any. If you take into account the infantry attack bonus for rtl, then they are at best just as good as armor. On defense and movement, armor is clearly better. Realistically, there must be some benefit for Russia to purchase rtl and there isn’t a benefit when all armor costs 4.
So I guess my conclusion is that the best way to model cheap is to have a limit of 1 per turn at 3 IPCs. Alternatively, you could say, if Russia buys 3 armor per turn, then they get 1 free, but the problem with that is that it doesn’t compliment the other cheap unit NAs very well. You can’t say, for every 3 fighters UK buys in a turn, UK gets 1 fighter free. UK would have to save up a lot of IPCs and then buy 4 fighters in 1 turn. That’s not a good realistic purchasing strategy.
I feel that a limit of 1 per turn brings a nice similarity and simplicity to the cheap unit NAs, while offering a great compromise between realistic mass production and game balance. I concede that it doesn’t make perfect sense to have a limit on production like that, but think of the effect of only having 1 cheap armor per turn on the game. It is a great, simple rule that happens to give a realistic model of the number of Russian armor units without being too powerful for Russia.
That post will take time to grasp…
the team is: you, me, duke, Mr. Andersson (gamemaster), das reich, and a few other bit players for now. more to follow…
I don’t see how 1 armor per turn at 3 IPCs would really make Russia that much stronger, but we’ll never know for sure until playtesting.
Thats just a 2 IPC bonus. It’ll be fine.
This then brings me to why I don’t think unlimited armor at 4 IPCs each would work… If armor costs the same as rtl, then the mass production of armor would cut into the production of rtl.
Yeah it would be weird. Tanks should cost more than artillery even when mass produced.
So there is something wrong with our model.
We need to model mass production. The overall cost should still be more than artillery.
Maybe 1 free tank when you purchase 5 tanks?
With 25 IPC Russia can buy 6 tanks, or 6 artillery with 1 IPC left.
We get strange situations when don’t modelling it properly. “Tank at 4 IPC” is much stronger than “1 free tank every 4 tank”. More logically it should be called “5 tanks for 20 IPCs” instead. It would model how the other factories (eg. artillery factories) can’t produce tanks!
Also this mass production advantage I believe wasn’t there until 1943. Something about the older T34 (vs. T34-85) wasn’t “right on the money” and they didn’t mass it.
“You can’t say, for every 3 fighters UK buys in a turn, UK gets 1 fighter free. UK would have to save up a lot of IPCs and then buy 4 fighters in 1 turn. That’s not a good realistic purchasing strategy.”
My sugguest was specific to Russian tanks. I haven’t done research to this whether this mass production thing can be justified for UK planes.
If we were to do it anyway it could be “2 fighters for 18 IPCs”.
I actually rather not a totally remake of cost charts. We work with such small numbers you can’t fine tune.
I’m OK with defining it as 1 cheap unit per turn like I said (i.e. 1 Russian armor per turn for 3 IPCs) or defining it like 2 of that type of unit for a discount (like 2 Russian armor per turn for 8 IPCs). Obviously, with these 2 examples the first option is better than the second but both would work out fine.
I don’t like saying that you need to buy more than 2 of that unit type to get the discount. Russia should never be forced to buy 4-5 armor in a turn to be able to take advantage of this. Russia needs to be able buy many infantry every turn and still take advantage of T-34s NA.
Like I said before, I’m OK with either of the 2 options above, but I still prefer 1 armor for 3 over 2 armor for 8. I just don’t see the big deal of just letting it be 1 armor per turn for 3 IPCs. IMO that’s as good a model of T-34 production as we’ll get.
Well instead of making a few pieces cost different for each ally… why not make a new nation specific unit value so each nation has specific units that have better values and costs. So japan will have like tanks at 2-3, while germany gets 4-3… some infantry will be at 2-2 while others are getting artillery at 3-2. UK can have planes at 4-4 and usa can have bombers at 5-2 (heavy) the list goes on…of course the costs reflect accurately what was possible… perhaps this is phase 3 stuff.
what do you guys think of having the game presented as a combination of a set of rules? What I mean is instead of having a game of RR, axis advantage or bidding (like the combination rules there were before), now before players sit down and play they decide what type of game they’ll play with exactly one choice in the following 3 categories…
Tech rules:
National Advantages:
Expansion Units
Italy
I think this set of combinations is key so that this will appeal to a wide enough audience. Not everyone wants the same thing, and this solves that as well as gives people the chance to mix things up for better replayability.
The structure is fine. It would be like a menu of installed rules covering each type of game they want.
If we’re going to have options like that, then all options in a certain category don’t all have to be introduced in the same phase. The Simple Tech option can (and should IMO) be introduced in phase 1 while the Complex Tech option can be introduced in a latter phase.
For our main version of historic accuracy the list of NAs could be quite short. What could happen: Radar shouldn’t be restricted to UK and become a tech option…Lend-lease is going to be standard…Convoy raid would sort of displace U-boat interdiction…
But thats normal and realistic.
If we’re going to have options like that, then all options in a certain category don’t all have to be introduced in the same phase.
We’ll have to structure our phases well if we were to have multiple versions.
Or lets not get carried away and just focus on our dream historic version.
Trimmed down options are just something on the side IMO.
