DK's Hybrid Axis and Allies Map and Rules

[Der Kuenstler]

@siredblood:

You have put in a lot of work DK, amazing! Whats also amazing looking is all the Japanese ships ready to jump on Hawaii lol … looks like little resistance :)

LOL - well, we do an arms buildup for setting up and my opponent put no US ships in the Pacific, so I just took what he gave me there…

[Der Kuenstler]

Last night’s game pictures here- fun night!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1669666249946133/

[Argothair]

So I just looked at the map, the rules, and the setup chart for the first time. It’s all very impressive! The graphic design is all professional-quality, and there are some very ingenious solutions to long-standing problems in A&A design. I am going to comment on some of the rules that I found more interesting, on the theory that Der Kuenstler or some of his friends or even just random passers-by on the forum might be interested in the resulting discussion. I realize nobody asked for my opinion, so if you don’t find it useful, please feel free to ignore it!

My favorite part of this variant is the idea of having amphibious assaults gift three “free hit absorption” tokens to the defender which can be partially or totally cancelled with the use of a parallel land-based invasion or an airborne assault. I think this mechanic is especially elegant because of the natural way that its usefulness scales up and then drops off as armies get larger. With literally zero defenders, it doesn’t matter if you’re invading by land or by sea. With 1 defending infantry, the defensive hit absorption is helpful but not a huge deal, because keeping that 1 infantry alive longer is only going to do so much damage to the invaders. With 3 defending infantry and a fighter, the defensive hit absorption is crucial, and makes the attacker really prioritize getting (and holding!) a beachhead. With 10 defending infantry, the defensive hit bonus starts to look like a side-show…yes, it strengthens the defense, but when you land a million-man army on the beaches, the success or failure of your campaign will turn on who has the better army, not on where you invade. And all of this emerges naturally from the simple rule, without the need for complicated exceptions! Love it.

My second favorite part of the variant is the highly improved map in Europe, ANZAC, and South America. The Priepet Marshes area is perfectly executed; there’s a tough choice for the Axis to make on offense, a couple of interesting options for the Soviets on defense, and the whole thing is clearly laid out and executed without “garbage” territories that are too small or too boring to be worth troubling with. Boosting Eastern Australia to 2 IPCs gives Britain a focal point to defend in the ANZAC region, and the addition of Fiji, Samoa, Peru, and Argentina to the map give Japan a continuous eastward path of expansion from Indonesia all the way to Brazil, instead of forcing Japan to stall out and turn around, like most A&A maps. Well done!

I am less wild about giving every Chinese territory five invisible defending infantry every time it gets attacked by Japan. With at least 10 Chinese-controlled territories, I see that as overkill – Japan has a “core income” of about 40 IPCs on this map, counting Tokyo, the Central Pacific, the South Pacific, and the East Asian coastline, which is not radically different from what Japan would earn on the AA50 map. If you conquer India, Australia, Hawaii, Fiji, the Soviet Pacific territories, and about five Chinese territories, that puts you up to about 55 IPCs, which is still not all that weird for a mid-game AA50 Japanese income. So where is Japan supposed to get the income to deal with an extra 50 Chinese infantry?

I’m cautiously optimistic about the “neutral negotiation” rules. I like the idea of not knowing exactly when or whether a neutral territory is going to come into play, and I like the idea of being able to pay more money to be more persuasive, and I like the way pro-Axis territories now lean toward the Axis instead of being automatic Axis partners. However, it seems like it would take a long time to check to see which countries are reachable, roll dice, decide whether to use a Sabotage card, and decide whether to pay the required fee for every single neutral country on every single player’s turn in every game round until the neutrals are gone. I could imagine that really slowing the gameplay down. I wonder if it wouldn’t be more straightforward to say that on your turn, you can make one neutral persuasion check for one territory, and depending on what dice you roll and how diplomatically favorable the situation is, that tells you how much you have to pay to seal the deal. For example, for friendly-aligned countries, instead of rolling 2d6 for every single country and needing a 10 to pay 5x face value, an 11 to pay 3x face value, or a 12 to pay face value to bring the country on board onto your faction, maybe you could roll 2d6 for one country of your choice per turn, and then use the chart below.

4 or less: Automatic failure
5: Pay face value to convert
6: Pay 2x face value to convert
7: Pay 3x face value to convert
8: Pay 4x face value to convert
9: Pay 5x face value to convert
10: Pay 6x face value to convert
11: Pay 7x face value to convert
12: Pay 8x face value to convert

For a true neutral, you could start the chart at 7, like so:

6 or less: Automatic failure
7: Pay 3x face value to convert
8: Pay 4x face value to convert
9: Pay 5x face value to convert
10: Pay 6x face value to convert
11: Pay 7x face value to convert
12: Pay 8x face value to convert

And for an enemy-aligned country, you could start the chart at 9:

8 or less: Automatic failure
9: Pay 5x face value to convert
10: Pay 6x face value to convert
11: Pay 7x face value to convert
12: Pay 8x face value to convert

Just a thought; it might speed things up while giving players a little more control over their diplomatic strategy. You can still try to convert multiple adjacent territories before the relevant enemy gets to play, e.g., if Germany’s trying to make progress in the Middle East before Britain’s next turn, then Germany, Italy, and Japan might each be able to make a diplomacy check in the region.

Finally, I’m surprised that paratrooper transport planes are so cheap, at only 4 IPCs a pop, especially since it’s possible to transport ordinary infantry by plane (if I’m reading the rules right), and this actually cancels amphibious invasion penalties at a 1:1 ratio. Paratroopers themselves also seem cheap at 4 IPCs each, given that they attack at 2, defend at 2, and get to disable an entrenchment or coastal gun. I’m just trying to do the math here, and it doesn’t seem to work out fairly. Two transport planes plus two paratroopers cost 16 IPCs, and they can deliver 2 hit points and 4 offensive pips, plus some cool special effects. One transport boat, one infantry, and one artillery in your system cost 15 IPCs, and they can deliver 2 hit points and 4 offensive pips with no special effects – but only if you have command of the sea lanes! A lone transport is very easy to kill with a fighter, bomber, sub, battleship, etc., and so you will almost always have to buy some defensive boats like destroyers to protect it, which seriously jacks up your “price per delivery.” The system isn’t necessarily broken; you’ll still want some transports to offload heavy equipment like artillery and tanks, and if you happen to have command of the sea lanes and/or an existing beachhead to work with, then sea transports start looking more attractive. Still, I would have priced the transport planes and/or paratroopers a bit higher, to better reflect the difficulty of training elite forces who could jump out of planes with primitive 1940s-era parachutes and still be ready to fight, and to better reflect the rarity of paratroopers during the historical World War 2. Given the prices you’ve set up, I’d probably tend to buy an even mix of sea transports and air transports, or even a modest tilt in favor of air transports, whereas I believe the historical ratio was closer to 10 sea transports for every 1 air transport.

On the whole I’m really impressed by how much work you’ve put into this and how well the components fit together, and if we’re ever in the same town, I’d be very happy to play a game of Version 7 with you to see how it goes, my various worries and reservations notwithstanding. Thanks for designing this, and thanks for sharing! Cheers, Argo

[Der Kuenstler]

@Argothair:

So I just looked at the map, the rules, and the setup chart for the first time. It’s all very impressive! The graphic design is all professional-quality, and there are some very ingenious solutions to long-standing problems in A&A design. I am going to comment on some of the rules that I found more interesting, on the theory that Der Kuenstler or some of his friends or even just random passers-by on the forum might be interested in the resulting discussion. I realize nobody asked for my opinion, so if you don’t find it useful, please feel free to ignore it!

Hello Argo - thanks for the thoughtful and detailed review of our variant! I’ll try to answer each of your points in blue.

My favorite part of this variant is the idea of having amphibious assaults gift three “free hit absorption” tokens to the defender which can be partially or totally cancelled with the use of a parallel land-based invasion or an airborne assault. I think this mechanic is especially elegant because of the natural way that its usefulness scales up and then drops off as armies get larger. With literally zero defenders, it doesn’t matter if you’re invading by land or by sea. With 1 defending infantry, the defensive hit absorption is helpful but not a huge deal, because keeping that 1 infantry alive longer is only going to do so much damage to the invaders. With 3 defending infantry and a fighter, the defensive hit absorption is crucial, and makes the attacker really prioritize getting (and holding!) a beachhead. With 10 defending infantry, the defensive hit bonus starts to look like a side-show…yes, it strengthens the defense, but when you land a million-man army on the beaches, the success or failure of your campaign will turn on who has the better army, not on where you invade. And all of this emerges naturally from the simple rule, without the need for complicated exceptions! Love it.

Yes we have been using this rule for 15+ games and everyone likes it - simple to implement and makes amphibious assaults more realistic.

My second favorite part of the variant is the highly improved map in Europe, ANZAC, and South America. The Priepet Marshes area is perfectly executed; there’s a tough choice for the Axis to make on offense, a couple of interesting options for the Soviets on defense, and the whole thing is clearly laid out and executed without “garbage” territories that are too small or too boring to be worth troubling with. Boosting Eastern Australia to 2 IPCs gives Britain a focal point to defend in the ANZAC region, and the addition of Fiji, Samoa, Peru, and Argentina to the map give Japan a continuous eastward path of expansion from Indonesia all the way to Brazil, instead of forcing Japan to stall out and turn around, like most A&A maps. Well done!

I’m pretty happy with the map. If I made another one I would like to make Moscow just a dab farther from Germany when the game starts. I would also like to make terrain and weather a factor in some simple way.

I am less wild about giving every Chinese territory five invisible defending infantry every time it gets attacked by Japan. With at least 10 Chinese-controlled territories, I see that as overkill – Japan has a “core income” of about 40 IPCs on this map, counting Tokyo, the Central Pacific, the South Pacific, and the East Asian coastline, which is not radically different from what Japan would earn on the AA50 map. If you conquer India, Australia, Hawaii, Fiji, the Soviet Pacific territories, and about five Chinese territories, that puts you up to about 55 IPCs, which is still not all that weird for a mid-game AA50 Japanese income. So where is Japan supposed to get the income to deal with an extra 50 Chinese infantry?

Yes this was found to be overpowered. We are now playing where 4 Chinese rise up the first time you attack. If you lose the territory and have to attack it again, only 2 Chinese rise up. After that no Chinese rise up. This is in the 7.0 rules version. We’ve found it is still very difficult to totally conquer China (as it should be) but if you can conquer at least half of China they become kind of a non-factor the rest of the game and Japan can go North or South through India. I was able to conquer all of China using these rules last game when the USA player put all of his navy in the Atlantic and the British ignored me. China is no longer just a speed bump on the way to Moscow and we like that. Keep in mind we are using an arms buildup so you can put a rather huge Japanese force there to take out China if you cut back some on navy.

I’m cautiously optimistic about the “neutral negotiation” rules. I like the idea of not knowing exactly when or whether a neutral territory is going to come into play, and I like the idea of being able to pay more money to be more persuasive, and I like the way pro-Axis territories now lean toward the Axis instead of being automatic Axis partners. However, it seems like it would take a long time to check to see which countries are reachable, roll dice, decide whether to use a Sabotage card, and decide whether to pay the required fee for every single neutral country on every single player’s turn in every game round until the neutrals are gone. I could imagine that really slowing the gameplay down. I wonder if it wouldn’t be more straightforward to say that on your turn, you can make one neutral persuasion check for one territory, and depending on what dice you roll and how diplomatically favorable the situation is, that tells you how much you have to pay to seal the deal. For example, for friendly-aligned countries, instead of rolling 2d6 for every single country and needing a 10 to pay 5x face value, an 11 to pay 3x face value, or a 12 to pay face value to bring the country on board onto your faction, maybe you could roll 2d6 for one country of your choice per turn, and then use the chart below.

It doesn’t really slow anything down because you have to be able to occupy the territory with one of your land units, so the most TT’s eligible to be rolled for during one turn is 3-4, usually by Britain. Japan only has one TT, Mongolia, near it and it is Pro Russia, so Japan hardly ever negotiates. Then, you have to roll a 10 or higher just to get the country to talk to you, otherwise you move on. If you see it played out neutral Negotiation is really kind of a little sideshow.

4 or less: Automatic failure
5: Pay face value to convert
6: Pay 2x face value to convert
7: Pay 3x face value to convert
8: Pay 4x face value to convert
9: Pay 5x face value to convert
10: Pay 6x face value to convert
11: Pay 7x face value to convert
12: Pay 8x face value to convert

For a true neutral, you could start the chart at 7, like so:

6 or less: Automatic failure
7: Pay 3x face value to convert
8: Pay 4x face value to convert
9: Pay 5x face value to convert
10: Pay 6x face value to convert
11: Pay 7x face value to convert
12: Pay 8x face value to convert

And for an enemy-aligned country, you could start the chart at 9:

8 or less: Automatic failure
9: Pay 5x face value to convert
10: Pay 6x face value to convert
11: Pay 7x face value to convert
12: Pay 8x face value to convert

Just a thought; it might speed things up while giving players a little more control over their diplomatic strategy. You can still try to convert multiple adjacent territories before the relevant enemy gets to play, e.g., if Germany’s trying to make progress in the Middle East before Britain’s next turn, then Germany, Italy, and Japan might each be able to make a diplomacy check in the region.

Finally, I’m surprised that paratrooper transport planes are so cheap, at only 4 IPCs a pop, especially since it’s possible to transport ordinary infantry by plane (if I’m reading the rules right), and this actually cancels amphibious invasion penalties at a 1:1 ratio. Paratroopers themselves also seem cheap at 4 IPCs each, given that they attack at 2, defend at 2, and get to disable an entrenchment or coastal gun. I’m just trying to do the math here, and it doesn’t seem to work out fairly. Two transport planes plus two paratroopers cost 16 IPCs, and they can deliver 2 hit points and 4 offensive pips, plus some cool special effects. One transport boat, one infantry, and one artillery in your system cost 15 IPCs, and they can deliver 2 hit points and 4 offensive pips with no special effects – but only if you have command of the sea lanes! A lone transport is very easy to kill with a fighter, bomber, sub, battleship, etc., and so you will almost always have to buy some defensive boats like destroyers to protect it, which seriously jacks up your “price per delivery.” The system isn’t necessarily broken; you’ll still want some transports to offload heavy equipment like artillery and tanks, and if you happen to have command of the sea lanes and/or an existing beachhead to work with, then sea transports start looking more attractive. Still, I would have priced the transport planes and/or paratroopers a bit higher, to better reflect the difficulty of training elite forces who could jump out of planes with primitive 1940s-era parachutes and still be ready to fight, and to better reflect the rarity of paratroopers during the historical World War 2. Given the prices you’ve set up, I’d probably tend to buy an even mix of sea transports and air transports, or even a modest tilt in favor of air transports, whereas I believe the historical ratio was closer to 10 sea transports for every 1 air transport.

The reason the transport plane is so cheap is it has only the one use. We priced them at 6 IPCs for a while and no one was buying them. The Airborne only attack at 2 if dropped from a plane. The short range of the transport plane makes airborne ops pretty limited most of the time. But you are right - the airborne were overpowered in some cases so we’ve made them be able to do their special abilities only on a roll of 1-3 (50% chance) instead of every time, reflecting the possibility of being blown off course, and also limited each country to six airborne on the map at any one time to reflect their elite status.

On the whole I’m really impressed by how much work you’ve put into this and how well the components fit together, and if we’re ever in the same town, I’d be very happy to play a game of Version 7 with you to see how it goes, my various worries and reservations notwithstanding. Thanks for designing this, and thanks for sharing! Cheers, Argo

Thanks Argo - make sure you have the 7.0 version of the rules and the Addendum which we staple to the back of the rules and contains our adjustments or additions, found above. We would love to have you come by for a game - we are an active group - we have been playing every month for the last 4 years.

[Der Kuenstler]

Last night marked the five year anniversary of monthly game night for us - we’ve been through three maps and several editions of house rules over that time. Players have come and gone but we have six regulars now. We did an arms Buildup and three rounds as usual when starting a new game.

At the close of round three, Germany is thumping pretty hard on Russia - the Germans don’t have much pressure so far on their Atlantic side so have focused almost everything on the East Front…

Below the USA has managed to make a landing in Morocco which spoils Italy’s monopoly of the Med…

Italy has run wild across Africa as it was only lightly defended this game - with their bonuses kicking in for dominating the Med they are making big money.

Japan chose to ignore China so far and push North, breaking the treaty with Russia on round one. But this has resulted in China getting alarmingly strong - if they push Japan out of Manchuria they will hold all of their original territories and can leave China then…

The USA got a surprise attack from the Axis on Mexico, but managed to push them out by turn three and now own an Axis factory…

The Axis are pumping their muscles - doing well but the Allies are not ready to give up yet!

[vodot]

Wow, this is impressive.  Nice work.  I’ve got IL’s 42 map open in GIMP right now, and was about to go to work adding Italy & China ala POS from triplea + AA50 considerations- you’ve made it much easier on me! Of course, this is also much more complicated that I was looking for, but I think we could probably simply ignore anything my group isn’t ready to handle yet.

Any reservations with me taking this and making a Hybrid ‘Lite’? Any chance you’ve already got something like that floating around? :) Thanks!

[Der Kuenstler]

Hi vodot - Yes that’s basically what I did starting with IL’s map. Feel free to adapt this as you’d like - you might want to check with IL as I got permission from him to adapt his map - I’m sure he’ll have no problem with it.

[Imperious Leader]

yea no problem, just don’t take off my name please.

[Der Kuenstler]

I now have a youtube channel where the map and house rules will be discussed - please subscribe!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH4q5s1w5ibwvX_8V6NyhvA

[Der Kuenstler]

Hey all - Latest rules version 7.3 and setup cards 7.3 can be downloaded here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?fke26796apo8p

This link also includes a file of counters which symbolize units we use that you may not have. I’m proud to say this latest edition is actually shorter than 7.0. At a lean 19 pages long, it is even shorter than the original Axis and Allies manual from 1986, which has 32 pages. The more recent official Axis and Allies release (Global 1940) has 43 pages and Historical Board Gaming’s Global war 1936 has over 60 pages.

Arms buildup has been removed in favor of setup that better reflects history, yet gives each player just enough freedom to make each setup unique. Other confusing or impractical rules were either scrapped or adjusted.

[Hambone]

Just printed off your rules 7.3 and will read those more carefully later.  The Variable set up rule looks very interesting and just wanted to relay that thought.  Thanks for sharing!

[Der Kuenstler]

Thanks Hambone - hope you find them interesting!

[Der Kuenstler]

The Progressive Arms research chart and rules that go with 7.3 above can be adapted to any edition of Axis and Allies, and can now be purchased at HBG…

Click the link here to see my explanation video and purchase…

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Progressive-Arms-Research-Chart-_p_2750.html

[Trenacker]

Terrific stuff! I am adapting some of your rules, along with the rules layout, for my games as well. I also love (and subscribe to) your YouTube channel.

How did you figure out how to properly scale the map for printing? I have got a map of my own but can’t determine how to figure out proper dimensions so that it will scale to the right size when printed in a larger scale.

[Der Kuenstler]

@Trenacker:

Terrific stuff! I am adapting some of your rules, along with the rules layout, for my games as well. I also love (and subscribe to) your YouTube channel.

How did you figure out how to properly scale the map for printing? I have got a map of my own but can’t determine how to figure out proper dimensions so that it will scale to the right size when printed in a larger scale.

Hi Trenacker - I don’t know what software you use but with Photoshop I first set the map file to 300 DPI (Standard print quality) and then the final size I want the map to be. (in my case 58" long by 34" wide) So the map is already exactly the size I want it while I’m making it. Then I send it to the printer as is without any resizing.

[Hambone]

DK, any chance you have a complete map file with France split in two (other changes as well)?
I was contemplating printing this map, however after seeing your change and your reason for the change I would want to have that incorporated into this map.

We have a G40 game tomorrow and we will be adding Flagships, Entrenchment chips and the Variable set up concept.  Should be fun!

[Der Kuenstler]

@Hambone:

DK, any chance you have a complete map file with France split in two (other changes as well)?
I was contemplating printing this map, however after seeing your change and your reason for the change I would want to have that incorporated into this map.

We have a G40 game tomorrow and we will be adding Flagships, Entrenchment chips and the Variable set up concept.  Should be fun!

Hi Hambone - wow - that’s cool! Let me know how things go tomorrow.

I was going to upload the map with new changes but not until we played on it first to make sure it worked well - we will play on the 30th of this month. I don’t want to have everybody downloading something that hasn’t been tested if I can avoid it.

[Trenacker]

DK, by helping me out in Photoshop, you just made my year. I’ve been trying for months to figure out how to make my draft map print-ready. Thanks again!

[Der Kuenstler]

@Trenacker:

DK, by helping me out in Photoshop, you just made my year. I’ve been trying for months to figure out how to make my draft map print-ready. Thanks again!

That’s great! I hope we get to see your map when it’s done!

[Trenacker]

Rounding out the cities on the map, which will be small(ish) circles.

DK, may I ask how you added roundels to the map? I’ve found a few online, but the resolution is ruined when I try to paste them into Paint or PhotoShop. They also usually come with white or dark backgrounds that must be removed or painted over.