Ah hell, while I’m at it… I might as well work out the rest of the A&AG40 kinks. I don’t have the 50AE anyway :-( .
Scrambling: Gone.
Yay! That was easy!
Er, not quite…
In the Attack phase, players can still elect to have their fighters Defend (and roll with defender values) a sea zone next to a territory under their side’s control by declaring so in the Declare Attacks phase. Other air engagements over sea would be Attacking. This provides for the peculiarity of having fighters of opposing sides both Defending common sea zones such as SZ 110. They’ll both role 4’s. So be it (barring a good idea from you), it’s the best solution I see at the moment. No adjacent air base required.
Tac bombers are not augmented in the same fight unless an accompanying fighter was declared to Attack that sea zone. (Or do you think they should still augment as long as it’s in the same zone?)
In fact, to bring this to balance, all Naval movement needs to be done in the Attack phase, whether it’s intended combat or not. By this logic, you could have a submarine Defend as well, but I’d see no reason to, ever.
Bombing raids:
An extra step and separate before the Declare Attacks phase.
Bombers that are used for a bombing raid may not participate in an attack in the Declare Attacks phase.
Execution of the bombing raid still happens as it does in a normal game.
Politics:
No more neutral powers. America and Russia start out as Allied powers that are not yet at war. When one does join the war, it join the war against all Axis nations, not against one specifically.
This also has the interesting effect of allowing other Allies to move troops into these territories. (This theme is incidentally an upcoming revision in my America-as-Axis variant.)
Defenseless transports:
Not a change, just a clarification. Transports can be destroyed in border clashes, but it’s worth noting that non-carrier Aircraft don’t participate in border clashes. Destroying a defenseless transport with aircraft would happen during the Main Combat. Another way to look at it: this means that aircraft aren’t “faster” than ships. This does however have an effect of making transports more squirrely, as they will be harder to sink with aircraft than before.
And a problem discovered while writing this: Submarines will almost never fight with their defensive value. So submarines need to be changed somehow. Easiest solutions I see are either increase cost, or “Submarines fight at 1 if a destroyer is present.”, which might also require cost revisions.
Did I miss anything?
I think all those points are solid. Probably best to keep everything as close as possible when possible.
So basically
purchase/repair
allot movement
Bombing
Clash/combat + blitz
allot movement
place/collect
Following the familiar sequence, the only real difference is how combat/non com moves are planned.
I like the round Robin rotation. Good point too on the subs.
The politics would certainly be more straight forward with sides defined, I tend to agree.
If you go to Boardgamegeek and look under the A&A Classic edition, there is a variant named Plottet A&A, copyrighted by Greg Turner, and it have exactly the rules that you are discussing over here. The file even have notepads that you can print out, makes the plotting phase go faster. But you should keep in mind, it was made for the Classic edition that had only two land units, Tanks and infantry, and no destroyer.
You could write 4 Inf, 2 Tanks to Ukr, from Ge.
But used in Global 40, with so many units, and so many spaces to move, and 8 players, well….enough said
But at Harrisgamedesign, the guy that invented A&A, it was a discussion about a semi-simultaneous mechanic a few years ago, that looked promising and simple to resolve.
Each player wrote down their combat moves, and how much IPC they are willing to pay to make it happen. If its a tie, roll a dice.
Ex
German army in Poland want to attack Balticum and pay 5 IPC to do so.
Russian army in Balticum want to attack Poland and pay 2 IPC to do so.
Germany won the bid, pays 5 IPC and do the attack.
With this system, the combat will be resolved in the OOB way, with an attacker and a defender.
Narvik, thanks for your input! Unfortunately I can’t seem to find this Plottet variant. I’m very interested. Could you post a link, please?
Narvik, thanks for your input! Unfortunately I can’t seem to find this Plottet variant. I’m very interested. Could you post a link, please?
The file is for members only, so you need to register and log in at Boardgamegeek.
http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/57257/plottet
try this link
Yeah these sorts of ideas having been kicking around for a while. I recall seeing posts on the Larry boards as well. Usually though, when people try to collapse the turn order, they attempt it alternating by sides (all Axis then all Allies etc.) I think if you’re going to go to that effort, which requires rebalancing to work anyway, I think its just more interesting to go fully simultaneous all at once.
Using a standard cribsheet can be helpful for the first round. The way we did was to just write out the moves by territory, or group units out of the key territories, for every round after that.
You’re correct though, this process is simpler with less units, map territories, and nations. Still if it can be done for classic, Revised and AA50, I’m sure it could be done for G40 as well, it’s just a matter of time. I think its possible, even with all the writing, to still resolve the game Same-Time in roughly the same number of hours as it takes to resolve the game TBS, whether the turn order is collapsed by side, or just the normal OOB turn order. Basically you spend the same amount of time, just doing different things. I think one potential advantage of Same-Time, is the way all players are focusing on the same phase at the same time. I think it promotes a kind of collective will towards speeding everything up, in terms of the rolling and the income collection for example. Especially if you use a minute-glass. I don’t really recommend playing this way if you can’t get at least get a multi, 3 players is doable, 4 is ideal though. It’s more fun and the division of labor is better.
I think playing a collapse turn order (alternating by side Axis then Allies) can be confusing in a 1v1 game, because of all the separate purchasing, income, and placement you have to track all at once. The collapsed turn order by side drags too, since it takes a very long time to complete each side, and whichever side is up, the opponent basically does nothing except roll defense like a robot the whole time. It lacks a lot of the natural breaks that the standard turn order provides when you go down to just two turns, Allies to Axis, or Axis to Allies. I think simultaneous would be ideal, if the goal is to reflect a more historical character to the combats.
In regular OOB turn based A&A, the passage of time is way more abstract, which leads to anomalies… like the ‘unending D-day’ mentioned earlier, scripted can-openers, fighter shifting, and the Hammer/Anvil on Moscow for ex. It also leads to the “double-dip” on income via territory trading.
Many of these change once you go Same-Time, so you end up with new dynamics. For example, once the turn order is gone (or even just collapsed by side) then fighter shifting is no longer possible. You can’t count on your ally landing in your newly conquered territory to back you up. Same deal for Hammer/Anvil on Moscow, or Double hit on Berlin. This latter is extremely significant on the gameplay and income requirements to make it work. The ability to attack Moscow or Berlin with multi-national forces at the same time is potentially game breaking, if you don’t restructure starting income or income collection, or the way the capital capture for cash works. On the upside it is possible to rush fighters to make a decent capital defense, provided you have enough air.
I would love to see this work, but I believe it need to be simplified.
With the Classic edition, you could wrote 4 Inf Ukr > Cau + 2 Tanks E.Eur > Cau and that would work. But with the complexity of Global 40, it will bug down the game.
It can work if you wrote Army Pol > Bel as the combat move, and commit units when you resolve combat. Lets say you got 8 inf, 3 mech, 2 art, 3 tanks and 5 fighters in Poland, and this count as the Army you got in Poland. You short it down to Army Pol when you wrote the plotting. But when it comes to resolving the battle in Belorussia, you don’t need to commit everything you moved in from Poland, just the units you want. Same with ships, everything you got floating in seazone 110 is Fleet 110. So then you can write F 110 > 111 > 112 and this means your ships sail from 110 to 112.
It can be some arguing if two players are attacking each other in the same place at the same time, like a German army in Pol is attacking Belo simultaneously with a Russian army in Belo is attacking Pol. Will this battle be resolved on the borderline ? I cant remember any battle of WWII where to armies were attacking at the same time. Usually one was defending and the other attacking. The only rational way to solve this issue, is a bid. The part that are willing to pay the most IPC win the right to attack. The other must defend.
Ex
Germany - A Pol > Belo, 5 IPC
Russia - A Belo > Pol, 2 IPC
In this case Germany pay 5 IPC and attack Belorussia, and Russia defend, but don’t have to pay anything.
Imagine the IPC bid are huge stacks of supply, and the part that invest most into supply is the one that is ready to attack first. In the real war, an attacking army would need 7 times more supply than a defending army, so this model the real conditions in a historical correct way.
try this link
Thank you very much, Narvik! I will take a look at it soon.
I also agree with you entirely that this needs to be as simplified as possible.
I disagree with you on the execution of resolving 2 simultaneously attacking armies.
Black Elk proposed an individual skirmish he dubbed “border clash” where both forces fight with attacking values. The winner then carries on with its planned proper attack. I think this would be simpler than taking an extra step to bid for priority of attack. Which units would be fighting are even already written down!
Additionally, being forced to pay for attacking not only adds complexity in my opinion, but also potential frustration for a losing opponent. Picture a broke Chinese player that can’t counterattack ever because he is always outbid by the bigger Japan (or substitute China with Russia, Italy, UK, and/or ANZAC). It might debate-ably be more historically accurate, but it sure doesn’t sound as fun to me.
To compound on that, in a game where moving troops is more taxing than normal, the refreshing increase in combat opportunities and unknown possibilities should be a welcome excitement.
Black Elk, I like this idea to.
Narvik, instead of having a bid for who goes first on attack, you just roll a D6 or D12 and highest number wins thee combat initiative. This way theirs more money for buys.
a. All Axis aligned nations play simultaneously: Italy may not attack US/UK/France/Russia on R1. They may attack neutral, allied neutral, or incorporate Axis aligned nations.
b. All Allied aligned nations play simultaneouslyI think the way to approach this is for all players to resolve their moves in secret (independently of the enemy side) and then all reveal their moves at once. Step one is to resolve border clashes, when two forces of opposing sides try to cross the same border. These are the first battles rolled. All units in a border clash roll as if “attacking” for the purposes of determining hits.
Then any army which gets across the border, rolls to resolve whatever combat results in the territory which they were attacking. Here normal combat ensues (with the defender rolling at their defense value.)
Basically you have a situation where every player has to think about where they want to mtove, without first knowing where the enemy players’ units will be (or be moving themselves). You would therefore have to elect whether to commit all units to a cross border engagement, or leave some behind… In case you get beat at the border, or get invaded across a different border than the one you just attacked across. This would have the advantage of making territories with several borders, more strategically useful for attack, while simultaneously being more vulnerable on defense. This idea for a collapsed turn order, could be used in conjunction with new rules for armor on the blitz, to provide a can opening effect. There would also be an interesting dilemma for the attacker, whether to send units across borders into attacks, or to hold some forces in reserve, in case their borders are penetrated.
For enforcing alignment, you might restrict movement across borders in the known sphere of influence by side, For Japan/Axis and Russia/W. Allies for example. Though you would have to come up with a system to resolve which power is awarded control of a territory in the case of joint attacks against the enemy. Still it could probably be made to work in a 4 block, rather than a 2 block. We’d just have to put some thought into what co-location restrictions would be in place.
In order for such a game to work on a board like G40, I think you would have to dramatically increase the amount of money in play. This is because more units would necessarily be destroyed in the course of the game, on account of the unpredictability of simultaneous attacks, so you’d really want more unit replacement per round to keep it fun.
I can only see one problem with this. Mobilizing units.
Does France get to mobilize units then (since they take their turn with everyone else)? How will capturing capitals ever get you any IPCs, if your opponent spent them all the turn you capture their capital?
I think for a system like this to be successful one probably needs to replace the capital capture for “all the cash” dynamic. Even now, the only merit it really has is for game resolution purposes. In my view it is a hold-over from Classic that continues to undermine the VC system.
Unfortunately Europe 1940, has the capital capture dynamic built into the very first round, so you’d have to come up with an alternative system that keeps Germany viable without that French purse. A same time system like the one I was trying to outline, you’d definitely need some new rules to address that mobilization issue for G40, since it comes up right away, unlike Revised or AA50 where you could usually just call the game at that time.
Good point
