The updated OPERATION FELIX-HEINRICH includes the revised SetUp of units in Spain that are described in the G40 Strict Neutral Expansion rulebook.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
Good Action
Transport for 8 bucks would be a concern to me. It seems like the US has a hard time getting dudes into play. Transports are already high value targets. Would allowing them to pack a extra inf be overpowering ?
-
Development of my suggestion for national gold reserves:
Each nation (including neutrals) has a national gold reserve worth 1/3rd (rounded up) of its starting IPC income. Some suitable tokens for gold would need to be utilised; GRs are stored in capitals.
UK dominion nations (Canada, Australia, NZ & South Africa) have their own GRs.
Any nation at war adds the GR value to it’s income when collecting money. This represents the increased borrowing during wartime, and selling of war bonds.
When a capital is captured (or a neutral activated) all GR held there is immediately transferred to the capital of the capturing power and becomes part of its reserve.
All other capture-the-capital rules are deleted; so a nation losing its capital can still collect income and build units in the tt it still holds.
Possible addition: selling gold
A nation may during its own collect income phase sell gold to the bank at x3 face value.
Possible addition 2: Fort Knox
Before America goes to war, other Allies may sell gold to the USA at x3 face value. The advantage is that this GR will eventually be used to boost the Allies again, but only when America is at war. Further, units built from it will have to be built in America and transported to the battle fronts.
-
@Baron:
Don’t forget that Transport has only AAA Last Strike, so a destroyed TP is never dangerous. Also, two planes against 10 TPs for example, only allows 2 rolls AA @1, not more.
Also, they stay unable to defend against warships. So, no risk with a naval only attack against only TPs group.Oh, my mistake. I read it to be that Transports get 1 AA shot per combat round (1:1 up to the number of attacking planes). Seems I was incorrect.
@Baron:
This last situation makes me liking your idea about escaping TPs instead of total destruction.
How about 1 Transport can choose to escape in an adjacent SZ after each combat round?
Defender must decide after each combat round.
This would be a very easy mechanic to manage.This would be good too. Less hassle than rolling more dice.
-
Good Action
Transport for 8 bucks would be a concern to me. It seems like the US has a hard time getting dudes into play. Transports are already high value targets. Would allowing them to pack a extra inf be overpowering ?
It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines/Elite soldier A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 Marines units in a regular Transport or 1 Marines and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry).
It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33650.msg1286876#msg1286876Last and better version:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1469919#msg1469919 -
@Baron:
It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines A1 D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 units in a regular Transport.
It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.If you want to use Marines (or ‘Rangers’ if used in the European theatre; or SNLF as the Japanese variant) then I suggest to use the Marine-rules from the old 2001 A&A-Pacific:
A1* D2 M1 C4 - treat them like regular infantry, except that the attack at +1 in a naval invasion and may upgraded by artillery (A+1 if paired 1:1). -
FWIW… I have come up with an (generic) Elite Infantry unit with A2+ D3 M1 $5. Attack increases to 3 when paired 1:1 with an Armor unit. This is a unit type that could have a total-number-on-the-board cap or a build-per-turn cap. Not sure.
Cost of $6 is too much; would be better to just buy a tank. Needs to be greater than $4 based on superior capabilities to Art/Mech. $5 is the only slot left. By definition, this unit needs to be demonstrably better than normal infantry at base A/D values. There is very little room to fudge the numbers in a D6 system at this low a cost.
Based on the way Baron has been calculating relative unit value/power… (2) normal Infantry should be somewhere in the ballpark of (1) Elite in terms of cost and base hitting power.
-
@The:
@Baron:
It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines A1 D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 units in a regular Transport.
It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.If you want to use Marines (or ‘Rangers’ if used in the European theatre; or SNLF as the Japanese variant) then I suggest to use the Marine-rules from the old 2001 A&A-Pacific:
A1* D2 M1 C4 - treat them like regular infantry, except that the attack at +1 in a naval invasion and may upgraded by artillery (A+1 if paired 1:1).I didn’t like that such units can get A3 in amphibious assault when paired with Art.
Seems too high for a very rough combat situation (beach landing) historically not at the advantage of attacker but of the defender instead. -
@Baron:
@The:
If you want to use Marines (or ‘Rangers’ if used in the European theatre; or SNLF as the Japanese variant) then I suggest to use the Marine-rules from the old 2001 A&A-Pacific:
A1* D2 M1 C4 - treat them like regular infantry, except that the attack at +1 in a naval invasion and may upgraded by artillery (A+1 if paired 1:1).I didn’t like that such units can get A3 in amphibious assault when paired with Art.
Seems too high for a very rough combat situation (beach landing) historically not at the advantage of attacker but of the defender instead.I agree. No point in giving them enough advantages to totally offset the difficulty of the task. For Pacific, I think it was just some excuse to include the USMC as a unit.
-
@Baron:
@The:
If you want to use Marines (or ‘Rangers’ if used in the European theatre; or SNLF as the Japanese variant) then I suggest to use the Marine-rules from the old 2001 A&A-Pacific:
A1* D2 M1 C4 - treat them like regular infantry, except that the attack at +1 in a naval invasion and may upgraded by artillery (A+1 if paired 1:1).I didn’t like that such units can get A3 in amphibious assault when paired with Art.
Seems too high for a very rough combat situation (beach landing) historically not at the advantage of attacker but of the defender instead.I agree. No point in giving them enough advantages to totally offset the difficulty of the task. For Pacific, I think it was just some excuse to include the USMC as a unit.
Glad, we are likely minded.
On that point on beachlanding and debarkment, I believe it could be interesting to bring one of the 1914 A&A game feature.
Gives to each Artillery unit a single preemptive defensive strike @2 against offlanding ground units.
This pictures the coastal defense a Power can deploy to prevent beachlanding attack.
Something which could act like the Atlantic Wall, if German’s player put a few of them in a given TTy.
Maybe this can outweigh the usual retreat in-land tactic when a European TTY is dead-zoned by debarkment force.I would go as far as giving a matching pairing bonus with Artillery to Infantry on defense against sea invaders.
ARTILLERY
A2 D2 M2 Cost 4,
Gets one preemptive strike @2 against ground unit making an amphibious assault,
Gives +1A to Infantry and Mechanized Infantry, paired 1:1,
Gives to Infantry paired 1:1, one preemptive strike @2 against ground unit making an amphibious assault. -
FWIW… I have come up with an (generic) Elite Infantry unit with A2+ Â D3 Â M1 Â $5. Â Attack increases to 3 when paired 1:1 with an Armor unit. This is a unit type that could have a total-number-on-the-board cap or a build-per-turn cap. Not sure.
Cost of $6 is too much; would be better to just buy a tank. Needs to be greater than $4 based on superior capabilities to Art/Mech. $5 is the only slot left. By definition, this unit needs to be demonstrably better than normal infantry at base A/D values. There is very little room to fudge the numbers in a D6 system at this low a cost.
Based on the way Baron has been calculating relative unit value/power… (2) normal Infantry should be somewhere in the ballpark of (1) Elite in terms of cost and base hitting power.
Such range of combat value is near my HRed Mechanized Artillery.
MECH ART A2-3 D2-3 M2 Cost 5, +1A to Inf and MechInf, gets +1A/D if paired with Tank.Going higher than A2 D2 seems weird to me when talking about Infantry, even if they are Elite ones.
Paratroopers A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 4, are within acceptable limits.But the issue is to beat the Inf-Art combos (A4 D4 cost 7 IPCs) within a D6 system to make any Elite troops interesting and balanced from an optimized game-play perspective.
2 Artillery units are already less interesting (A4 D4 cost 8 IPCs).
It is a real challenged. -
@Baron:
Good Action
Transport for 8 bucks would be a concern to me. It seems like the US has a hard time getting dudes into play. Transports are already high value targets. Would allowing them to pack a extra inf be overpowering ?
It certainly changes the dynamic pace in game in the same with warships cost redux.
It is a complex matter.
One HR developped was about marines units.
Marines/Elite soldier A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4, can load up 3 Marines units in a regular Transport or 1 Marines and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry). It is somewhere in this Sub-forum.Maybe this could fit the bill for a generic special Infantry unit:
Paratrooper/Commando/Marines/ELITE Infantry
A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4,
Load up 3 Marines/Elite/Paratrooper units in a regular Transport or 1 Elite and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry).
Can be put on an Air Transport (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.The idea is that it cost more but you have fewer number (less logistics), better trained to do the same damage to the enemy, hence being able to put 3 units on a Transport.
Better and simpler version, here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1469919#msg1469919 -
I am intrigued by some of your ideas Baron. Since we have mostly been talking about existing pieces and adding some new ones, I am going to start a new thread here in House Rules to continue the discussion. I feel like we are getting Black_Elk’s topic off point.
I have been wanting to get opinions on the revised unit structure I am formulating, so this appears to be the best time.
-
Another thought I had, which is perhaps too radical for some tastes, would be to award actual units rather than just ipcs, each round. With some limited number like 1 land 1 air 1 sea (with the actual unit type determined by a roll) and severely restrict where they can be placed, such as 1 per factory territory. The idea here is that the “bonus” unit doesn’t cost you IPCs, it’s a freebie for the player, but has to be placed somewhere specific. Again it might be too much of a departure from the traditional system. But perhaps something like that could be used to encourage players to mobilize units in two theaters or multiple theaters, instead of just building in one direction?
Does something like that seem workable?
I’ve played with the +1 ipc battle bonus in AA50 and it typically produced between 3-10 ipcs per nation per round. Everyone had a much greater incentive to “actively fight” because each battle fought put +1 ipcs at stake.
No battle is a complete destruction of all armies involved on one side.
For each battle, allows the winner to save 1 of his costlier unit taken as casualty, to be produce at no cost in his own IC on the next game round.
Allows the looser to retrieve 1 cheapest unit casualty, at no cost on his production center on the next game round.
There must be at least 1 unit lost on each side to occur. -
All these combat unit discussions are fruitful, so I’d definitely encourage them. As for introducing new unit types this is also a possibility, but I would be cautious. In tripleA it’s relatively easy to include new unit types, but on the physical board the options are more limited. HBG does offer a wide variety of specialized sculpts, but these are sometimes limited in number, so it can get pricey if you have to by an expansion set for each player nation.
One way to approach it, is to offer an “expanded roster” option. So basically specialized units (whatever those end up being) are not included as part of the standard set up cards, but can be incorporated as units for purchase by those who wish to adopt them. Possibilities here might include things like Elite Infantry, Heavy tanks, a new class of aircraft etc.
For Elite infantry it might be advisable to make that unit type a catch-all, so Airborne, Marines, Rangers etc. all represented by one generic sculpt. Ideally it should be very easy to distinguish from regular infantry. A sculpt in a crouched or prone position, rather than standing might be one way to go. Not sure what HBG has on offer. Or maybe a painted base stand? But something to make it pretty identifiable at a glance.
I like some of the cost proposals coming in lately.
I also like the Gold Reserve concept. I think that idea has real promise as a way to tweak the traditional capital capture looting mechanic.
-
@Baron:
Paratrooper/Commando/Marines/ELITE Infantry
A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4,
Load up 3 Marines/Elite/Paratrooper units in a regular Transport or 1 Elite and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry).
Can be put on an Air Transport (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.The idea is that it cost more but you have fewer number (less logistics), better trained to do the same damage to the enemy, hence being able to put 3 units on a Transport.
Probably it could be more interesting if Marines/Elite on TP can allow 2 Marines Inf and 1 Art unit, at most for 12 IPCs invested. Giving A2+A2+A1 first strike on offence. Iit was more historically the case for Marines working with Artillery division, it is the only way I saw some incentive to put them together.
But, it probably becomes too OP vs regular transportation. -
Ok I have another question for you guys to kick around…
What are your thoughts on the damage/repair mechanic for the two capital ships in this game, battleships and carriers?
The 1940 game departs pretty significantly from its predecessors in this area. The OOB rules require that you be adjacent to friendly naval base in order to repair damaged capital ships.
Do you like this system? From a gameplay perspective? How about from a historical accuracy perspective?
I may be in the minority, but I’m not a particular fan of the way it works OOB, especially for Carrier decks.
The game’s other repair system is related to bombing and facilities, with a direct cost in IPCs. Ships by contrast repair for free, but they need to be at an operational naval base (which costs 15 ipcs to build.) I’m just curious if we might be able to create a better or more forgiving system for Carriers? Unlike battleships, which don’t lose their special ability to bombard, the usefulness of the carrier is totally shot if it is damaged mid battle. This might be novel from a historical perspective, but in terms of the gameplay it’s pretty rough.
One possible solution would be to allow 1 fighter to land/take off from a damaged (rather than the current system where it’s either 2 fighters if operational or 0 fighters if damaged.) The rationale here might be that the single unit sculpt represents a carrier task force which might include more than 1 actual carrier. So, as sometimes happened in the war, if the deck of one carrier was damaged, airborne fighters might be able to land on a the deck of a sister ship.
I think there were what like 3 or 4 carriers operating in the Pacific for the start date? And these are represented by a single sculpt. Japan likewise had more carriers than just the 3 they have as part of the OOB set up chart. So it would make some sense right? These sculpts are clearly representing larger carrier groups.I just think it would be nice if at least 1 fighter could land on a damaged deck, because the carrier unit has no defense value by itself. Fleets are already so vulnerable to land based aircraft and the carrier is the only way to meet the land based air threat, by putting defensive 4s the water via fighters. Seems a shame that a 36 ipcs investment can be undone so easily, when the game just doesn’t provide many alternative options for fleet defense at a cost within reason vs land based aircraft.
I played with 2 hits Carrier on WWII The Expansion. A damaged one could still have 1 plane on board.
In this rule, if you wanted to put a hit on BB, it required to put one on a Carrier first.
Simply because Carriers were the main target at sea.
What about extending the range of Naval Base repair capacity?
Any damaged capital ship in an adjacent SZ to a NB’s SZ can be repaired without moving the warships.
It is because the ships have the time to go back and forth within the timeframe between game round (3 to 6 months). -
I agree that giving a marine 3A with a artillery is a little overpowered but if they don’t get a bonus you’d be better off with reg inf/arty combo. As LHoffman alluded to limiting their number might be a good way to go.
I use Midnight Express’s rule that limits the US to 6 marines and Japan to 8 SNLF. They A2 on amphib 3 with arty. Revert to normal inf after amphib attack. Cost is same as inf. It takes 2-3 turns for the US to get into action so they’re really not OP’d. Japan can pretty much always have SNLFs so maybe they should be lowered, but overall I find it makes the Pacific more exciting.
I painted the helmets of US inf black and Japan red to distinguish. It seems to work good although you might need some more regular inf from other games.
-
Unfortunately I haven’t been able to keep up with this thread, but I see that some of the ideas are evolving pretty quickly. I know that these sea unit profiles are really off the current radar, but I just wanted to throw them out there. I personally think there are enough sea units in a G40 game without adding more, and I would rather increase their capabilities and/or cost than decrease their cost. That said, it is very difficult to modify 1 unit without a ripple effect to the other units, and I always prefer to keep things simple. Here are my unrefined, and untested ideas for new sea unit profiles…
Transport
Attack-0
Defence-0
Movement-2
Cost-7
Abilities
-May transport 2 land units (same as G40).Submarine
Attack-2
Defence-2
Movement-2
Cost-8
Abilities- Same as G40.
Destroyer
Attack-2(<r5) -3(=“”>R5)
Defence-2(<r5) -3(=“”>R5)
Movement-2
Cost-9
Abilities
-Can spot and attack submarines with other sea and air units (same as G40), however, destroyers do not negate submarine capabilities until the beginning of round 5.
-Attack and Defence increases by 1 after round 5.Cruiser
Attack-4
Defence-4
Movement-2
Cost-15
Abilities
-May make shore bombardments 1@4Aircraft Carrier
Attack-1
Defence-2
Movement-2
Cost-17
Abilities
-Require 2 hits to be sunk.Battleship
Attack-5
Defence-5
Movement-2
Cost-23
Abilities
-May make shore bombardments 1@5
-Requires 2 hits to be sunk.To compensate for more powerful sea units in the initial setup, I would propose adding a German fighter on both Holland and Norway, as well as a German Tactical Bomber on Berlin. I would also add a British fighter on both Gibraltar and Malta, and an American fighter on both Philippines, and Hawaii. </r5)></r5)>
-
One goal of mine, perhaps a gamey goal, is to see more ships on the board (more ships introduced through purchasing over the course of the game). Even holding to the traditional “no chips under ships” mentality, there are way more naval sculpts in the box than are typically used in a normal game. So the argument for reducing the cost/replacement cost of ships, is that if they are cheaper people will buy more of them, and be more willing to trade them in combat. Especially for cash strapped nations like UK, Italy, Anzac, Russia, the baseline entry cost of 8 ipcs for a destroyer, is fairly prohibitive. And a lone destroyer doesn’t do you much good anyway, so in reality you’re looking at a 24 ipcs at the door OOB, 8 for the DD and 16 for the carrier deck (on which to land 2 existing fighters, either yours or a friendly ally) just to have any hope of not seeing that investment immediately blasted by enemy air. Add to that 1 transport to make the fleet effective, and that’s 31 ipcs right there. More than most nation’s can manage on their starting income, and that’s blowing the whole wad on ships, with nothing left over for the often obligatory ground or air builds. Its just a lot of cash on the line, if you want to make an entry on the water. Even with a loaded carrier deck to defend, you often need the cover of an airbase with fighters to scramble, just to keep enemy air from nailing you immediately.
Part of the desire for cheaper ships has do with the way that navies get clipped right at the outset in A&A, usually by land based air attacks. I suppose it’s possible to design the first round such that these attacks are less common. But if the design of the first round resembles OOB, then more expensive ships seems like it would just equal less ships overall. Less cat and mouse, slower build ups and the like.
One thing I would like to see is an actual battle of the Atlantic, or more appropriately a real Atlantic campaign with ships from both sides mixing it up. I don’t mean like a round one flash in the pan, where all the ships are destroyed and then the battle devolves to an air umbrella on one side vs carrier stacks on the other, but something that looks a bit more like what happened in the war. You know, with Germany trying to strangle Britain with Uboats, and Allies responding with armed convoys.
The way it works OOB, the battle of the Atlantic is basically an air war. With German bombers on one side, and Allied fighters/carriers on the other, and this just seems a little silly to me.
The best way I can think of to change that dynamic would be to make the cheapest surface ship cheaper. If the destroyer cost 6 instead of 8, and the sub cost 5 instead of 6, I think we’d see more uboats at purchase, and more destroyers to back down the land based air attacks. Add to that some kind of anti air function for the cruiser and I think a more realistic battle of the Atlantic might take shape.
To Baron
I rather like the idea that just came in for naval base repair extending to adjacent sea zones. It seems reasonable enough, without upending the OOB concept too much. This would make the NB considerably more valuable than it currently is, at least with regard to repair, which in turn would make capital ships more attractive purchases, especially the battleship.
Instead of repairing in a single sea zone, an island NB could cover up to 5/6 tiles.
This raises the question though, would that make repair a non issue? Given that most sea zones are adjacent to an NB?Perhaps each NB should have a cap, such that it can only repair a certain number of ships in a given round?
Say each NB could only repair 3 ships per turn (to mirror the AB’s 3 fighters scrambling), this might prevent the repair free-for all that might otherwise occur if we extended the repair range of the NB to adjacent sea zones.
-
I totally agree on every points you just said. :-)
You also pointed out one issue about NB repair adjacent SZs which was annoying me too.
I find the 3 warships repair maximum to be a very consistent solution.
Suggested Topics
