G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[baron Münchhausen]

There is a long evolutionary process about SBR rules:

AA50 SBR
Fg A1 D2 C10, StB A0 C12, AAgun unit first on Fg and StB, then dogfight phase.
Damage D6

Spring 1942 SBR
Fg A1 D2 C10, StB A0 C12, dogfight phase first, then IC’s AAgun on StB only.
Damage D6

G40.1 SBR
Fg A1 D2 C10, StB A0 C12, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6
Tactical bombers cannot attack bases.

1942.2 SBR
Fg A1 first strike D2 C10, StB A1 first strike C12, dogfight first, then IC’s AAgun on StB only.
Damage D6
First strike means you have to remove immediately defender’s interceptors casualty and cannot roll to hit.

G40.2 SBR
Fg A1 D1 C10, StB A1 C12, TcB A1 C11, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6+2
TcB Damage D6 on bases only.

---

Triple A for 1942.2 (WWII v.5) SBR
Fg A1 D1, StB A1, dogfight first, then IC’s AAgun.
Damage D6

Triple A for AA50 (WWII v.3) SBR
Fg A1 D1, StB A1, dogfight first, then AAgun unit on Bombers only.
Damage D6

---

Redesign SBR 3 combat values options to be playtested:
Global and 1942:

Option #1
Fg A1 D1 C10, StB A0 C5, TcB A1 C10, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6
TcB Damage D6 on bases only.

Option #2
Fg A2 D2 C10, StB A0 C5, TcB A1 D1 C10, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6
TcB Damage D6 on bases only.

Option #3
Fg A1 D2 C10, StB A1 C5, TcB A1  C10, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6
TcB Damage D6 on bases only.

AA50 Original SBR rules:

Fighter Escorts and Interceptors
Fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids. Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting. Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex. The number of fighters that will defend is decided after the attacker’s Combat Movement phase is completed and before the Combat phase begins.

After antiaircraft fire is resolved against the attacking air units, if there are any defending fighters an air battle occurs between the attacking and defending air units. This combat is resolved in the same way as a normal combat, with a few exceptions. The fighters have an attack value of 1 (2 if the attacker has the Jet Power research breakthrough) and a defense value of 2, and the bombers have no attack value. In addition, the combat lasts for only one round.

After the battle, any surviving bombers proceed to carry out the raid as normal.
Fighters participating as either an escort or a defender cannot participate in other battles during that turn. Defending interceptors must return to their original territory. If that territory is captured, the fighters may move one space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attacker’s Noncombat Move phase begins. If no such landing space is available, the fighters are lost.

AA50 FAQ and Erratas

Global 1940, first edition SBR rules

Strategic Bombing Raids
A strategic bombing raid is a direct attack on a facility. During this step, you can bomb enemy industrial complexes, airbases,
and naval bases with your strategic bombers. When you damage these facilities, their capabilities are decreased or eliminated,
and your enemy must spend IPCs to repair them in order to restore those capabilities. These repairs will be made by the units’
controlling player during his or her Purchase & Repair Units phase (see Purchase and Repair Units, pg. 10).

To conduct a strategic bombing raid, the attacking player moves his or her bombers to the targeted territory on the map. Fighters (not tactical bombers) can also participate in strategic bombing raids as escorts and interceptors. Escort fighters (those accompanying the attacking bombers) can escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting. They cannot participate in any other battles during that turn, including a battle in the territory in which the bombing raid is occurring. This applies whether or not the defender commits any interceptors.

Any number of defending fighters based in a territory that is about to be strategically bombed can be committed to participate in the defense of that territory’s facilities. If the defender has elected to commit fighter interceptors, an air battle will be fought immediately before the strategic bombing raid is conducted. This air battle is resolved in the same way as a normal combat, with the following exceptions:

• The attacking bombers and fighter escorts and the defending fighter interceptors will be the only units participating in this special combat.

• The attacking strategic bombers will not fire in the battle, but they can be taken as casualties. Players select their own casualties based on the number of hits received during the air battle.

• The combat lasts for only one round.

• The fighters have an attack value of 1 and a defense value of 2.

So, having bombers with zero attack capacity has been done in the history of A&A.

[Black_Elk]

Been laid up with the flu all week. Missed a test game with Simon and have been pretty dead to the world, since staring at screens kept making me dizzy. Instead I’m just hovering over the mapboard periodically until I can rejoin the living.

Well it’s good to see the a0 concept was tried once or twice before, though I’ll admit to totally ignoring dogfighting in AA50. I always felt like bombing was potent enough in that game and already highly risky without introducing rules to make it even more expensive. For me it only really makes sense with the heavy reduction in the cost of the bomber unit, so I can see why it didnt last with a c12 combat bomber. To me improved escort/intercept is still the icing on the cake, but the real substance is the single role bomber concept itself (even independent of dogfighting, since I think it works as a stand alone thing.) Good to know though.

Corsica could be interesting. Not sure why its given to Italy in 1940? Having it as a separate tile, it would certainly a bit more significant under French control. Maybe the map makers were just so used to previous boards, that they forgot it wasn’t occupied by Italy until 42? Or maybe it was meant to be ignored? The lack of a roundel would seem to suggest it maybe wasn’t intended as a separate tile.

[Black_Elk]

For anyone with tripleA who hasn’t done so already, you should definitely check out Frostion’s Iron War map. It’s pretty glorious.
I anticipate it will keep me preoccupied for many late nights haha…

Barney tipped me off to its existence a little while back, but I only just now had a chance to delve into it. Had a lot of fun for a first time out.
:-D

[Black_Elk]

It has some cool features like resources, aid, and a D10 combat system…

Just been messing around with it for the past several hours. Figured some people here might dig it.
:-D

[vodot]

sweet! D10.  Do you know if anyone has done a complete “Space Empires” -style conversion with D10s for attack + defense (armor) ratings + individual unit-by-unit targeting? I would LOVE to figure out something like that.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah it’s pretty glorious I’ve played a couple dozen games this past week, as it’s one of the few tripleA games that’s actually entertaining vs the AI. Going that route it plays a bit like the total war games but WW2 themed of course. And somehow more satisfying since the combat mechanics are more transparent than in those CA games, where all the combat stuff happens under the hood. Here everything is out in the open based on dice rolls.

I know the same dude made a Star Wars and Star Trek themed map. I haven’t played those yet, but maybe they are d10 too?

What I like most about Iron War is the relative costs in the unit roster. It’s done in such a way that the hitpoint spam for infantry is a lot less pronounced than in typical A&A games. The production spread and the resources requirement to construct or move certain units, makes for more varied purchasing. I find d10 is just a lot more dynamic for combat. It allows so many more possibilities than d6, and pretty easy to get the hang of.

I’m sure this map will suck months of my life away haha
:-D

[Argothair]

I wasn’t super impressed with the Star Trek or Star Wars games, but I did really enjoy the Star Control / Ur-Quan Masters game – it’s extremely well-done. Very theme-y, and very well-balanced, although it does use d6 dice.

I like the A&A: WW1 mechanic where you need at least one infantry to hang out with your other units, or else they get degraded to infantry. That goes a little bit of the way toward making infantry good for something other than cannon fodder. I would also like to see infantry defend better than some other unit types, e.g., infantry defend at 3 and artillery only defend at 1 or 2, something like that. It’s fine if infantry are the cheapest unit, and it’s fine if they occasionally get sent in as cannon fodder, but ideally unit selection should mostly be a matter of finding the right tools for the right jobs, instead of just building mostly infantry as fodder and then throwing in a couple extra units of whatever you can afford.

I don’t think anyone has coded .xml that would let you individually target units. Armor is definitely something you can approximate; there’s code available to reduce the attack strength of various numbers or kinds of enemy unit(s), which basically amounts to armor. I am not in love with the Space Empires: 4X board game, but if anyone (including vodot) wants to collaborate on a re-imagining of SE:4X, then that’s a project I might want to work on. I wonder if there’s anywhere we could get useful graphics.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

I agree that cost is both complex and critical to proper gameplay.
Considering that your system should result in more hits on higher value units (esp if tacs “1” roll were to be assigned first to Armor), costs should probably be lowered to account for a greater need for replacements. I wonder if this would slow progress in any perceptible way… such that with fewer high-hitting units any advances will be slower and more battles comprising predominantly infantry-artillery will take place.

I didn’t address this point about assigning “1” roll to kill Tank.
I believe it opens an interesting option to how TcB interactions with Tank can be handled.
First, I can ditch the +1 A/D pairing bonus toward Tank. Maybe too strong? IDK.
But it was first intended to simulate the Tank Buster capacity of TcB. I used a known game mechanics but it requires some attention and manipulation on the battle board to keep the score right, whether because either a TcB or a Tank is taken as casualty.

If the “1” roll mechanics is introduced it can provide a way to picture how Air Supremacy gives a real advantage with TcBs.
Here is my change for TcBs :
On a “1” roll a hit must be assigned first on other planes, then AAA units.
If there is no such units remaining on the battle board, it is assigned on Tank.
When Air Supremacy  (no enemy’s aircraft nor AAA) is gained with TcBs, on “1” or “2” roll a hit must be assigned on Tank.
That way, in specific conditions, TcBs have a similar special roll against Tanks on “1” and “2” as Fighter toward planes.
Is it better to your taste?

It seems that all considerations about Tank busting capacity of Tactical bomber is more mythical than historical…

Considering the Germans lost around 1 500 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 7% were lost directly to air attack.(8 ) The greatest contributor to the great myth regarding the ability of WWII aircraft to kill tanks was, and still is, directly the result of the pilot’s massively exaggerated kill claims. The Hawker Typhoon with its cannon and up to eight rockets was (and still is in much literature) hailed as the best weapon to stop the German Tiger I tank, and has been credited with destroying dozens of these tanks in the Normandy campaign. According to the most current definitive work only 13 Tiger tanks were destroyed by direct air attack in the entire campaign.(9) Of these, seven Tigers were lost on 18th July 1944 to massive carpet bombing by high altitude heavy bombers, preceding Operation Goodwood. Thus at most only six Tigers were actually destroyed by fighter bombers in the entire campaign. It turns out the best Tiger stopper was easily the British Army’s 17pdr AT gun, with the Typhoon well down on the list.

Indeed it appears that air attacks on tank formations protected by Flak were more dangerous for the aircraft than the tanks. The 2nd Tactical Air Force lost 829 aircraft in Normandy while the 9th USAAF lost 897.(10) These losses, which ironically exceed total German tank losses in the Normandy campaign, would be almost all fighter-bombers. Altogether 4 101 Allied aircraft and 16 714 aircrew were lost over the battlefield or in support of the Normandy campaign.(11)

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/#Kursk 43: the Luftwaffe’s Story

So, it seems that insisting about TcBs targeting capacity is anachronistic at best.
It is not a worthy aspect to bother adding on a Redesign project.
It only adds complexity without deserving accurate historical depiction.

It seems better to keep +1 bonus to TcB attack factor when paired with Fighter or Tank.

What about increasing defense factor when paired with Tank and Fighter too?

Does TcB deserved to be less efficient against incoming ground attacker?

Or, they seems to be much better combat units against Naval units…
Maybe, this would imply to increase targeting on Carriers, Cruisers and Battleships.
Making them more dangerous at sea, somehow?

So, it leads to table top HR when “1” roll from TcB allows to hit either a plane (owner choice) or select a warship of TcB’s owner choice…

While Fg keeping the “2” or less allowing for hitting an enemy’s aircraft.

This would keep this general idea to allow plane to fight against plane.
It would be consistent with SBR dogfight values:
Fighter A2 D2
TcB A1 D1
StB no value.

But TcB would get a special niche against both Sub (for Anti-Sub attack and defense @1) and a special attack against warships.
Of course, it can not work in Triple A actually.

But, if working with 3 planes Carrier and more Air intensive such as:

Fg A2 D2 C7 hitting planes first.
TcB A2-3 D2 C8 hitting warship of your choice, this might be much more interesting.

This will keep the rock, paper, cisor dynamic if both Cruiser and BB have AA capacity and Carrier, being carrier for Fgs.

Alongside with a 3 IPCs scaled cost for CA 9$ and Carrier and BB at 15$.
It might not be unbalanced.
Just exploring a few consequences of this debunking…
:-)

[Trenacker]

Have modifications to the rules for the cruiser already been discussed?

Would there be any benefit to adding naval mines to G1940?

The Grafton Axis & Allies group uses a house rule allowing players to distribute up to 4 entrenchment tokens per turn. They are passive pieces that can absorb hits during combat.

Maybe strengthen the Dutch garrison in the East Indies?

[Shmolzer]

** I desperately need some clarification on the relationship concerning the UK in this game play!**

Ok, a friend introduced me to this game ( which I love! Btw great job on the map I love it too!!) We have played it off and on the last couple years, throughout the last 2 years of game play I’ve noticed it’s extremely hard to do anything with the Anzac or Canada.
With the IPCs those two make it makes them extremely hard to make purchases with and do anything on the board with.
We play with the UK, Anzac and Canada all have the same turn to go on but separate incomes , separate purchases and separate placements in the board.

Are we playing those countries the right way??

Do they possibly share incomes?

Should Canada start off with a factory on the east coast? Cause I usually have to wait to buy one till turn 3 then.

[simon33]

@Shmolzer:

Are we playing those countries the right way??

Do they possibly share incomes?

Should Canada start off with a factory on the east coast? Cause I usually have to wait to buy one till turn 3 then.

Well in standard G40, Quebec has a factory which allows producing into SZ106. Even then, the Canadian income is very difficult to make count if made separate from UK Europe.

Otherwise, you are asking if your house rules are correct. That’s like asking us for your own opinion.

[Shmolzer]

@simon33:

Otherwise, you are asking if your house rules are correct. That’s like asking us for your own opinion.

Sorry I should have worded my questions differently. I guess I’m asking for others opinions on the matter and what they think as well as what the rules are, I’m pretty new to this game so when I am told that something is the way it is I play it that way. In this case I’ve played Canada and Anzac that way and find it extremely hard to do anything with them. I realize they are minors but with them being minor allies of UK do they share an income? Or are they separate? Are they played independently or together? How does anyone else play them? I reference the way the minors are played with Germany. Sorry I don’t have the information with what countries they are in front of me, but anywho they just take over ipcs, armies, everything when they are activated. Wouldn’t at least Canada be the same way? Does anyone else play that way?

[CWO Marc]

Here are a few thoughts, in case they’re of any help.  Let’s try to break down some of the elements of your question, starting with the big-picture considerations first and then working downward.

The first thing to consider is: which game is your question about?  I’m raising the point because – at least to me – it wasn’t entirely clear from your other posts in other threads which game you were referring to.  It may have been the Global War game published by Historical Board Games, or it may have been one of the Axis & Aliies (A&A) games published by Wizards of the Coast.  I’ll assume that the game you’re referring to is the latest edition of the largest A&A game: Axis & Allies Global 1940, Second Edition, also known more shortly as Global 1940.2  Global 1940.2 is the game you get when you combine Axis & Allies Europe 1940, Second Edition, and Axis & Allies Pacific 1940, Second Edition, which each consist of a boxed set.

Assuming that, when you say “this game”, you mean Global 1940.2, the next question to consider is: under what rules have you been playing it?  There are basically three possible answers.  Answer one is: you’ve been playing the “out-of-the-box” (OOB) official rules that are printed in the official rule booklets that come with the game itself.  Answer two is: you’ve been playing under one of the unofficial but more-or-less-widely-accepted “balaced modifications” that exist in the A&A community, and which can be found on this forum.  Answer three is: you’ve been playing under some sort of house rules (HRs) – either your own, or those of your friends, or one of the dozens and dozens and dozens of such things that can be found in the House Rules section of this forum.

Both of the above points – which game? and which rules? – are crucial because they affect the potential answers to your questions (such as “do Canada and ANZAC share an income with the UK?”).

The third point to consider is the following one.  Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your posts, but regardless of which game you’re playing and regardless of which rules you’re using, it sounds to me as if you’re not satisfied by the Canada and ANZAC are handled in the rules you’re using, and it sounds as if you wish they were handled differently.  That’s perfectly fair, and that’s one of the reasons why so many house rules exist: many A&A players have long personal lists of things that they don’t fins satisfactoru about the OOB rules (and the OOB map, and the OOB sculpts), so the obvious solution is for them to develop and implement their own personal house-rule modifications to the game, for use in their local gaming group.  They’re not official, but if your group goes along with them that’s all that matters.  And indeed, in this forum’s House Rules, you’ll find various ones that do in fact modify how Canada and ANZAC are handled – so they could be a source of inspiration to you in developing your own personal HRs.

[Shmolzer]

Ok, first off sorry for not being accurate with the information. Along with being new to this game I’m also trying to reply during my work breaks bad timing on my part. The games and rules we use is from Europe and Pacific 1942.2. When put together make up Global 1940 Anniversary Edition. I got the rules off a blog here on this site posted by Imperious Leader. I would post the link but in not allowed to according to this site.

I hope this information helps clear things up

[CWO Marc]

@Shmolzer:

The games and rules we use is from Europe and Pacific 1942.2. When put together make up Global 1940 Anniversary Edition. I got the rules off a blog here on this site posted by Imperious Leader. I would post the link but in not allowed to according to this site.

I hope this information helps clear things up

Um, actually I’m now even more confused than before.  A&A Global 1940.2, A&A 1942. 2 and A&A Anniversary Edition are three different games.  A&A Europe 1940.2 and A&A Pacific 1940.2 can be combined to make A&A Global 1940.2.  A&A 1942.2 is a stand-alone game that’s still in print.  A&A Anniversary Edition was a special one-time standalone game that’s no longer in print.  And Imperious Leader’s rules are house rules, not the OOB rules for any of those games.

[CWO Marc]

As follow-up information:

A&A Europe 1940.2 and A&A Pacific 1940.2 are these two games…

http://avalonhill.wizards.com/games/axis-and-allies/europe-1940
http://avalonhill.wizards.com/games/axis-and-allies/pacific-1940
http://www.axisandallies.org/p/whats-new-in-axis-allies-pacific-1940-and-europe-1940-second-editions/

…and together they form A&A Global 1940.2.  You can download their official rules here:

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_europe_1940_rules.pdf
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_pacific_1940_rules.pdf

A&A 1942.2 is this game:

http://avalonhill.wizards.com/games/axis-and-allies/1942
http://www.axisandallies.org/p/axis-allies-1942-2nd-edition-preview-contents-of-the-box/

You can download its official rules here:

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_1942_rules.pdf

The downloadable rules above are a PDF version of the official rule booklets in the game boxes.  If you’re playing these games using something other than those rules, then you’re not playing according to the official rules but rather you’re playing according to some sort of unofficial house rules.

A&A Aniversary Edition is this game:

http://www.axisandallies.org/p/beginners-guide-axis-allies-anniversary-edition-1942-scenario/

It’s no longer in print.

[Black_Elk]

I’ve heard it through the grapevine that AA50 will finally be reissued this fall!!!
:-D

This is excellent news! It was by far my favorite game. I don’t know how many more runs we get out of A&A in the future, but if AA50 (or AA60 I guess by now? haha) ends up in a enough hands, I’ll be pretty happy to call it the zenith for the mid scale casual game. I will probably have to start digging up my old HRs for that one and floating them again in anticipation.

I think it should pair well with 1940 (who knows, maybe it gets a 3rd edition after all, if sales of the Anniversary are strong enough) but for now I’m just stoked that someone at AH had their ears to the street for a re-print, and that Kevin got a chance to comb over the rulebook too. So glorious

[LHoffman]

@Black_Elk:

I’ve heard it through the grapevine that AA50 will finally be reissued this fall!!!
:-D

Interesting. Where did you get your intel Black_Elk?

Although I suppose that re-issuing is something we can expect more of. Seems like every brand these days is seen first and foremost as a cash generator. It either has to keep evolving with new products or re-issued/re-booted version of previous products… all to keep that money flowing in. While they could develop more theater or battle-level spinoff games, AH really can’t take the Global A&A game farther than they already have. To keep the flagship game selling and relevant, they are re-issuing the novelty item.

Really AA50 doesn’t need to be re-issued. It’s not even 10 years old. In terms of OOB gameplay and balance, it is my impression that most people think it is one of the better A&A games. So I am a bit jaded over this being the latest episode of the constant-hype culture we live in.

Yet I am interested to see how they tweak the existing version. Maybe we see some rule changes that have been bandied about on this thread. They could make this version a very tight, fun game; neither too big and complicated like G40 nor small and confining like G42.

So who is going to buy up a bunch of copies expecting them to more than quadruple in value like AA50?

[General 6 Stars]

@LHoffman:

@Black_Elk:

I’ve heard it through the grapevine that AA50 will finally be reissued this fall!!!
:-D

Interesting. Where did you get your intel Black_Elk?

Although I suppose that re-issuing is something we can expect more of. Seems like every brand these days is seen first and foremost as a cash generator. It either has to keep evolving with new products or re-issued/re-booted version of previous products… all to keep that money flowing in. While they could develop more theater or battle-level spinoff games, AH really can’t take the Global A&A game farther than they already have. To keep the flagship game selling and relevant, they are re-issuing the novelty item.

Really AA50 doesn’t need to be re-issued. It’s not even 10 years old. In terms of OOB gameplay and balance, it is my impression that most people think it is one of the better A&A games. So I am a bit jaded over this being the latest episode of the constant-hype culture we live in.

Yet I am interested to see how they tweak the existing version. Maybe we see some rule changes that have been bandied about on this thread. They could make this version a very tight, fun game; neither too big and complicated like G40 nor small and confining like G42.

So who is going to buy up a bunch of copies expecting them to more than quadruple in value like AA50?

The info on game is in the news thread with a person to person you tube announcement.

As far as AH taking the 40 game further is correct in what your saying. Guys have been house ruling that game for awhile including some guys here. Only way they can make it go further is by adding all the special advance pieces and some rules. You start adding more neutrals and it starts getting closer to the 39 games.

[LHoffman]

@SS:

The info on game is in the news thread with a person to person you tube announcement.

Thanks SS