Merchant Marine

Hey guys,

Been thinking of ways to make naval warfare more enticing in AA1914.

I think it is an opportunity to give something unique to both sides, so here’s what I was thinking.

For the Entente (Allies) : Freighters. You can build 1 per 8 land IPC you command, costs 3 IPC, 2 movement speed. Every time it ends its turn either next to a neutral country worth 2 IPCs or more or in the naval base of one of your allies (not your own), you gain 2 IPCs.

For the CPs (Axis):

Restricted Sub Warfare : Active from the game’s onset, on the British turn, every CP sub in sea zones 2, 7 and 8 roll and on a 3 or less, 1 IPC is deduced from the UK’s income. Unrestricted Sub Warfare : Active when declared by Germany. Same as above except that it applies to the UK and the US’ turns and every sub in those areas are automatic hits and 1 IPC is deduced. The Entente may remove one roll for every surface warship in those zones. Merchant Raiders : 3 IPCs, movement speed of 2. They are stealthy and can therefore sail past blockading enemies like subs do. Every turn they end up adjacent to an enemy territory, that enemy loses 1 IPC. If the territory is worth 2 IPCs or more, the lost IPC is instead transferred to the raider’s owner. Only 1 IPC per raider may be deducted and gained this way. To sink the raider, the Entente must send ships in that area to find it. Instead of normal combat, the Entente declares which ships is on “raider” duty. He gets 1 point per ship sent and then rolls a die. If the number rolled is equal to or less than the number of ships sent, the raider is found and destroyed (so if 3 ships are sent on patrol, a roll of 3 or less destroys the ship). He gets only one roll per turn. The CPs may only have one raider per 6 land IPCs they own.

I think this could make naval combat more fun and significant in the game, especially for the CPs who could see value in trying to take command of the seas or force the Allies to chase them around. On the Entente side, it would give some countries (Italy, USA particularly) a shot at boosting their IPCs and decide if they play the long economic game at the risk of lacking armies.

Let me know what you think !

@655321 said in Looking for feedback on house rule ideas for HBG Marines expansion w/ AAG40:

Thank you, that is helpful information. I like these ideas. I’m going to start a new game soon and try some of these out.

Ya no problem. You have any ideas or questions on any thing I’m sure I or barney can help you out in some way.

Nice try, but the problem with house rules is they unbalance the game. Who will buy trannies anymore when you can put infantry on destroyers ? You must then change cost and abilities to the whole shebalong of units, in order to rebalance it, so now you got a brand new game, the A&A Carolina edition.  :-D

just for some historical facts, I happen to know about 2 incidents where infantry used destroyers for transport. First was the amphibious assault on Norway 9. april 1940. A German destroyer with a crew of 360 sailors could take 200 infantry as cargo. For the attack on Narvik, 2000 Austrian infantry that was part of an mountain division, did sail on 10 destroyers, from Germany to Narvik in Northern Norway. Their first problem was they could not make an amphibious assault against a well defended shore. They had to debark at a port like passengers from a liner. And the only reason they succeeded debarking at Narvik was the Norwegian officer in command at Narvik was a pro Hitler Nazi. Their other problem was that all heavy equipement and supply had to come on trannies. So there are no way around a tranny. Their last problem was that after 9 days under deck the fighting spirit was low, so they would need a couple of days to recover. There are a reason the Allies made Landing Crafts for the Normandy invasion. Another issue conserning your game is that an average A&A infantry unit is supposed to represent an army of 100 000 men or something, not 2000 men. A rule like this could work in a tactical level game, but now so much in a grand strategy game like A&A. But with that said, this was actually an optional rule in the A&A Revised edition from 2004.

Oh, and the other example I know is the Dunquirk evacuation after the fall of Belgium, this is also in 1940. The myth says it was a fleet of civilian sailboats, rafts and canoes that lifted 350 000 british infantry from the beach over to UK. The fact is, it was 20 british destroyers that did the job.

So to make a house rule that got a link to the real war, I say a destroyer got the ability to ferry, or bridging, one infantry unit across one or two sea zones in the combat phase only, either as amphibious assaulting an empty enemy territory, or if its not empty let the defender roll a preemptive strike, and if the infantry on the destroyer survive, he can attack. Or for a Dunkirk evac, let one defending infantry retreat via a friendly destroyer, even if this last suggestion is blatantly cheesy

@CWO:

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

If you just using A&A Pacific, 1940 (2nd Edit.) as a “Stand Alone” game only, and using this as a “Special House Rule” scenario it wouldn’t be problematic and would make this interesting for the folllowing reasons - By the rulebook, the U.S. and Japan are not a war yet until Japan attacks first (which would be stupid to do outright) and if this is played in the “House Rules”, Japan may place their all of their units in the Sea and Land zone of Kiangsu Province. HOWEVER, they DO NOT recieve the IPC for it until either ALL American Forces in China (the 4th Marine Regiment and the Yangtze River Patrol at Shanghai) are either evacuated out of China and headed towards either the Philippine Islands (which both actually did do in 1941) or eastward towards Hawaii or one of the outlaying Island outposts before war is declared or Japan decides to “sneak attack” and goes after the American Forces in China and wins, that is when they finally recieve the IPC for the Province. Until then NOTHING, it would be a “Eyeball to Eyeball” scenario in the “Special House Rules” to see who blinks first. And thanks for reminding me about the AVG (the Flying Tigers") in China, i will definitely add them in the “House Rules” as well.

[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

About cost balance of Elite/Marines, here is a first point:

The 4 IPCs and 7 IPCs Marines unit transportation cost is relatively balance on the long run, when a player can use for a second time some transports.
After the first travel, where it is better for Marines unit, the transportation ratio is reversing toward regular units.

FIRST TRAVEL                                                        / SECOND TRAVEL, same transport
Cost ratio for Regular unit transportation:
3 (transport + Inf + Inf)                                                 3 (Inf + Inf)
3 (7+3+3) = 39 IPCs /6 grounds = 6.5 IPCs/unit  /  3(3+3)= 18 IPCs +39 = 57 IPCs/12= 4.75 IPCs/unit

2 (transport + Inf + Tnk) + 1 (transport + Inf + Inf)        (4 Inf + 2 Tnk)
2*(7+3+6) + 1*(7+3+3)= 45 /6 units = 7.5 IPCs/unit  /  12 + 12 = 24 IPCs + 45 = 69 IPCs /12 = 5.75 IPCs/unit

Cost ratio for Marines unit transportation:
2 (transport + Inf + Inf + Inf)                                        2 (Inf + Inf + Inf)
2*(7+4+4+4)= 38 /6 units = 6.33 IPCs/unit             /      2*(4+4+4)= 24 IPCs + 38 = 62 IPCs /12 = 5.167 IPCs/unit

2 (transport + Inf + Inf+ Tnk)                                       2 (Inf + Inf + Tnk)
2*(7+4+4+7)= 44 / 6 units = 7.33 IPcs/unit            /      2*(4+4+7)= 30 IPCs + 44 = 74 IPCs /12 = 6.167 IPCs/unit

So, after a second travel, with the same 12 units the transportation ratio is improving for regular units compared to Marines ones:

for 12 Infs vs 12 Marines Infs =  4.75 vs 5.167 IPCs/unit.

for 8 Infs+ 4 Tnks vs 8 Marines Infs + 4 Marines Tnks = 5.75 vs 6.167 IPCs/unit.

Interresting combination of 2 rules and a way to promote islands hopping:

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4222&start=48

Darby wrote:
All Amphibious Assaults
a) Are at -1 for land amphibious launched land units for the first two rounds.
b) Defenders fire at +1 for the first round.

Amphibious Assaults staged from an adj. tt with some land in it - negate one round of Offensive minuses, and negate the Defensive pluses.

I REALLY like that it still allows people to do the 3 move assaults, but makes it more difficult.

Here’s a few changes I suggest:

On all amphibious assaults, all attacking units in the land battle have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat and all defending units in the land battle have their defense value increased by 1 for the first round of combat (These include Shore Bombardments and Anti-Aircraft Guns). If all transports unloading units on the amphibious assault have moved one or less spaces this turn before unloading, all units attack and defend without these modifiers.

�A lie never lives to be old.� � Sophocles

mantlefan
Post subject: Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 pm

The Changes do well to clarify … but I’m still wondering if we want to reward coming from a bit of land that serves as a logistic staging base.
The way you have it worded – A fleet can wait in a sea zone for a turn before attacking – No benefit as compared to attacking Honolulu from The Marshalls or Japan from Iwo Jima
(Besides the benefit of course of being able to put you land units safely on the islands while waiting to attack rather then at risk on transports.)

Do we want to reward Island hopping as well as just slow assault speed ?

Also I don’t think all attacking units should be minus just ones from transports
a) planes should not really get a minus
b) units from adj. flanking land tts should not get minuses (eg. Landing in Normandy - support from Holland)
c) Shore Bombard should be at full if applicable
etc.

hat might work, but it still harms the UK in London more than it helps Japan IMO. I like the idea where you can still attack if you want, but your troops fight worse if it’s done long range. How about a fusion?

Land units unloading into a enemy territory from transports that have moved 3 spaces that turn have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat. Land units (including Anti-Aircraft guns) that are defending in an amphibious assault have their defense values increased by 1 for the first round of combat, as long as at least one of the Transports unloading into the territory has moved 3 spaces that turn

Our Infantry are 5 ipc each.  We play on a customized map so we don’t have the same prices as you might have.