Hi Baron,
I’m having a small game this Sunday. We’ll probably just play the Pacific side of the map instead of Global. Should be a good opportunity to test your Sub idea. The land-based AAA will come into play some. I’ll give the 5 IPC version with up to 2 shots a try as well. I’ll post an AAR early next week so we can discuss.
Cheers!
Cool. 8-)
Thanks and have fun.
I will read your report for sure.
Hi Baron. We had a very long 8-player game on Saturday. However, 2 of the players where 1st timers and this was only the 2nd time for all of us to play this revised rules set.
In the end, I didn’t want to through too many new variables. So, in short, I elected to not implement the submarine rules this time. However, I think it is a good rule. Subs vs Subs simply does not make sense in a WWII environment and I think the rules can easily be modified to reflect this.
Hi Baron. We had a very long 8-player game on Saturday. However, 2 of the players where 1st timers and this was only the 2nd time for all of us to play this revised rules set.
In the end, I didn’t want to through too many new variables. So, in short, I elected to not implement the submarine rules this time. However, I think it is a good rule. Subs vs Subs simply does not make sense in a WWII environment and I think the rules can easily be modified to reflect this.
Fine.
I’m just thinking about the special “4” roll to directly hit Carriers.
Since your game is more air oriented, why not simplify, KISS, this one to a “2” roll (CV gets A0 D2, 2 hits, OOB) but since DD is also in this category, you can protect them with fodder, or even with Cruiser, since it is a higher roll casualty “3”.
Also, to simplify unit interactions, if DD cost 7 and Sub 6, there is no need to require that a friendly DD be present to score some hits on Submarines. The OOB intent was to be sure to use DD as naval fodder and not just sub as cheapest fodder, since in your rules DD is far better than Sub.
Keep DD as Sub submerge blocker and it still works.
I’ve been really happy with giving ships @1 preemptive AA abilities. … and that is the ONLY way ships can hit airplanes.
During a ship’s normal combat rolls, their “big-gun” hits must be applied to other ships.
This lets you attack fleets with only air units and dish out some serious WWII-style dive-bomb/torpedo damage unless the defending fleet has air-cover. (which it should)
When planes are attacking with naval units, if defending planes score some hits, the attacker can still apply casualty to his naval units, right?
Vichy question: Since it may be possible that France does not fall on turn 1. And Allies may have moved units to other French territories, what happens to those units (Allied and French) and the control status of those territories where Allied units exist - would they go “Free French” and not Vichy?
Also, French Central Africa should go Allied Friendly Neutral.
@Baron. Correct! Defender my select an air or sea unit to be hit when the attack comes from a plane.
@Carolina. Haha! You caught that regarding C. Africa. :-D that is a KISS rule. It’s already hard enough to explain the Free French / Vichy French situation to new players. …. and C. Africa is kind of a remote area … so I just made it simple for playability.
Regarding not removing France on Turn 1. Wow … I haven’t given it much thought. Never been in a game where that happens. And unfortunately history can’t provide us with much info either. … I guess we could say that any French territories with Allied Units in them upon the fall of France become Free French instead of Vichy??? What do you think?
Vichy issue continued. Yes seems like there could be awkward situations; Does 1 UK inf keep a territory with a larger French force “Free”. Or would that 1 inf unit find themselves in an unenviable position of being caught in a hostile territory - what would they do? (Seems like they would want to get out!). But it would seem a large UK force would keep a French territory free.
Hi Carolina,
Been giving this a think. Why not just keep the rule “as is”? If any Allied Units are in any French territories after the fall of France they can do one of the following:
1) Use their next combat move to retreat from the now Vichy France territory.
2) Use their next combat move to fight the bastards. :)
hahaha.
This keeps the Vichy rule simple and probably fairly historically accurate for a “what if” scenario that didn’t really happen.
What do you think?
I’ve gotten some PM’s asking for a printable version of this rule set. I’ve modified the original post to include a link to the print-friendly Google Doc. Please let me know if you have any problems printing. Also, if any groups give these rules a shot, please post an AAR! Would love to analyze and continue to refine this set.
re: Vichy - I am making a separate posting for Vichy rules. Vichy is simple if France falls first turn - which should happen about 99.9% of the time. But it gets complicated fast if France is able to move and control other territories past the starting OOB.
THREE TURN PLAYING SYSTEM and ENHANCED COMBAT
Attacking Together Casualty Selection
Axis and Allied forces that attack together randomly select casualties for the same unit type. (For example, if there are 3 German and 2 Italian infantry and they decide that an infantry will be the 1st casualty, the Germans roll 3 dice and the Italians roll 2 dice. Whoever has the higher sum takes the casualty.) Any other “random” method may be used as well
Occupation may be pre-decided. However, if the attacking players cannot agree: Country with the largest army remaining at the end of the battle takes control of the occupied territory.
What about something which doesn’t need any additional roll?
The greatest number of units takes the casualties and when you reach equal number of units, each nation pick 1 unit at a time, starting with the other friendly units.
Example: 5 UK and 3 US Infantry, and must take 1 hit, so you loose 1 UK Inf.
Next combat round, 4 UK and 3 US, suppose 2 hits, UK loose 1 Inf, US loose 1 Inf.
Next combat round, 3 UK and 2 US, suppose 1 hit, UK loose Inf,
Next combat round, 2 UK and 2 US remain, players agree which is the first casualty, then pick alternatively.
OR
You pick casualty according to a rough ratio between attacking nations:
around 1:1, the largest number is picked first, the other second, alternatively,
if even, both players should agree about who take first casualy, then alternate,
around 2:1, the largest number is picked twice first, the other take 1 casualty, alternatively,
around 3:1, the largest number is picked three times before taking the other once,
around 4:1 and above, 4 units are picked on the largest group, then 1 unit of the other.
Since this ratio can change each combat round, you apply accordingly to the actual ratio.
Example: 5 UK and 3 US Infantry makes 1.67 ratio, and have to take 1 hit, so you loose 1 UK Inf.
Next combat round, 4 UK and 3 US, ratio is at 1.33, nearer 1:1, suppose 3 hits have to be chosen, UK lost 2 Inf, US 1 Inf.
Next combat round, 2 UK and 2 US remaining, still 1:1 ratio, players agree which is the first casualty, then pick alternatively.
No special roll required, so when rolling dice in game, it stays focus on combat.
IMO, it is simpler.
Hi Baron,
To be 100% honest … we just play with “Pre-Agreed” arrangement as to who will take control of the territory. Actually, I think this is how I’ll update the rules set, and leave a “random method” as a fall-back incase two players can’t agree.
Let’s look at this in history:
- Two, or more, friendly nations are going to know WELL in advance how the territory will be governed once the fighting stops. For instance, Italy didn’t help Germany in France thinking that there was a chance that Italy would gain that territory if their casualties were low and the German casualties were high!
In the games we’ve played, there is a strategic advantage as to “why” Player A is willing to attack a territory together with Player B … even though Player B will take control of the territory. … Therefore, it is in Player A’s best interest, even though he will not gain any IPCs as a result of the capture of the territory.
Narvik brought up an interesting suggestion for planes at sea. Here is the rule proposal:
Fighters and TAC’s may only COMBAT MOVE one sea-zone.
If based on land, they can only COMBAT MOVE into the sea-zone directly adjacent to, or surrounding their starting territory. After combat, they will have ONE movement point allowance remaining during the non-combat move phase.
If based on a carrier, they can COMBAT MOVE into a sea-zone or lande zone directly adjacent to the originating carrier sea-zone. After combat, they will have ONE movement point allowance remaining during the non-combat move phase.
Analysis
This rules set makes airplanes the true KINGS OF THE SEA. However, it also gives them their original range. Naval Combat is simulated on a much tighter time-scale than Land Combat. Each round of Naval Combat is probably simulating 12-24 hours. While each round of Land Combat is probably simulating 1-2 weeks. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to have combat aircraft flying 2000+ miles over the open ocean and returning!
This range restriction would still allow airplanes to DOMINATE naval combat, but it would also make their historical ranges more realistic. Overall, I think it will be a better simulation for the game.
I would like people’s input and suggestions. However, please read the entire Rules Set first because there are a lot of inter-locking changes. This range rule could not be implemented with the OOB combat system. It would need to be implemented with this Enhanced Combat System in the original post.
Fighters could make London to Berlin - so rule seems too restrictive. Change the rule to be restricted to carrier based aircraft only. They can move 1 out and 1 back in combat mode. This allows attacks in adj sea zones or adj land territories. If doing a non-combat move only from carrier - allow the full 4.
@Carolina:
Fighters could make London to Berlin - so rule seems too restrictive. Change the rule to be restricted to carrier based aircraft only. They can move 1 out and 1 back in combat mode. This allows attacks in adj sea zones or adj land territories. If doing a non-combat move only from carrier - allow the full 4.
IMO, an AirBase over an island should be treated like a non-movable carrier.
You can fly outside the surrounding SZ, 1 Sz a way.
Carriers
What about carrier based planes can combat move a total of TWO zones? (4 zones for non-combat moves)
This would allow the following:
Attacks on adjacent land-zones
Attacks on adjacent sea-zones without committing the carrier. (planes can retreat and move one zone back to carrier if attack fails)
Attacks on sea-zone TWO spaces away. However, this would be a “committed” attack since the carrier(s) would need to move into the contested sea-zone to retrieve the planes as they would have zero movement allowance left.
The two-space movement allows for the simulation of a strike. If planes can only move one sea-zone you would have to pre-arrange your fleet next to the enemy’s fleet on the previous turn … it would restrict sea movement too much.
Basically, the OOB rules allow for planes to strike a fleet THREE zones away. (Three out and one back. Carrier moves up TWO to “catch” the planes) … With the revised Naval Combat rules, maybe planes become TOO powerful this way. … This revised rule would allow planes to only strike a fleet TWO zones away. And the carriers would have to end their movement INSIDE of that strike zone.
This reduces the range (and power) of the planes. It also adds a risk-factor for longer, two-zone strikes.
Land-Based Naval Strikes
I like BM’s suggestion for handling “land-based” naval strikes. …. Maybe this would be made even more simple by just eliminating the extra movement allowance that air-bases provide??? That always seemed a little “gamey” to me anyway. This would achieve what BM is suggesting and still kind of keep air-movements OOB. That way, air-bases only provide scramble capability.
Carriers
What about carrier based planes can combat move a total of TWO zones? (4 zones for non-combat moves)
This would allow the following:
Attacks on adjacent land-zones
Attacks on adjacent sea-zones without committing the carrier. (planes can retreat and move one zone back to carrier if attack fails)
Attacks on sea-zone TWO spaces away. However, this would be a “committed” attack since the carrier(s) would need to move into the contested sea-zone to retrieve the planes as they would have zero movement allowance left.
The two-space movement allows for the simulation of a strike. If planes can only move one sea-zone you would have to pre-arrange your fleet next to the enemy’s fleet on the previous turn … it would restrict sea movement too much.
Basically, the OOB rules allow for planes to strike a fleet THREE zones away. (Three out and one back. Carrier moves up TWO to “catch” the planes) … With the revised Naval Combat rules, maybe planes become TOO powerful this way. … This revised rule would allow planes to only strike a fleet TWO zones away. And the carriers would have to end their movement INSIDE of that strike zone.
This reduces the range (and power) of the planes. It also adds a risk-factor for longer, two-zone strikes.
Land-Based Naval Strikes
I like BM’s suggestion for handling “land-based” naval strikes. ….Maybe this would be made even more simple by just eliminating the extra movement allowance that air-bases provide??? That always seemed a little “gamey” to me anyway. This would achieve what BM is suggesting and still kind of keep air-movements OOB. That way, air-bases only provide scramble capability.
What about a 1 move penalty when flying over SZ?
That way, carrier base Fg and TacB get only 3 movement points.
Fg or TcB from Island Air Base keep 4 move points (4 +1 AB -1 SZ), so can come back to AB up to two SZs away.
With 3 Move points on a Carrier, you cannot go three SZs and come back 1 SZ to land on the same Carrier, which moved 2 SZs, unless the Carrier can reach third SZ with Naval Base bonus. But if a friendly Carrier reached in the third SZ, it is still possible if well coordinate to move planes to this maximum 3 SZs and this friendly Carrier will be part of the battle. In either case, a Carrier will be part of naval combat and at risk.
Question on your HR;
What happens if planes only with TPs attack a fleet made of warships only?
All warships hits will be allocated on TPs, right?
Really cool concepts!!
Anyway, if Italy come first, and so before UK, i’m wondering is too good for Axis.
Infact you can destroy the whole UK fleet in sea zone 98 on first turn (normally the UK could play first).
Same problem in Alexandria, UK troops could be wiped out by Italian forces in Tobruk.
Any solution? Repositioning of UK starting units? Italy can’t attack UK on first turn?
See ya! :wink:
Hello Zaibach,
Sorry for the late response. Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system. It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.
However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously. It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.
We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.
