World at war rules questions

Now have 2 sets of rules with optional rules.

Standard rules use a more Axis & Allies turn based system.

In standard rules, all Axis move first simultaneously, followed by Allies.  That would encompass 1 entire season (4 seasons to a year).

Defender withdrawing still allowed, but can no longer move units into space the attacker is attacking (except for air units).

No more initiative in standard rules.

PM me to get an updated copy of the rules.

Cheers

Is this for the Axis and Allies CD or Triple A?

I don’t know the answer either way, but you’ll probably have better luck posting this question in the Software forum:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=53.0

Table Tactics used to have available the Central Powers units, which if you combined them with say the infantry figures and artillery from Attack, you could pretty much have what you needed for a WW1 land game, and the naval units, less carriers, would cover the naval aspect.  You could pretty much eliminate the Asian aspect as that lasted a very short time.  You did have the Emden raiding in the Indian Ocean and Von Spee’s squadron sailing across the Pacific, sinking Cradock’s two cruisers, Good Hope and Monmouth, and then attacking the Falklands, where 4 our of 5 of his cruisers were sunk in December of 1914.  Aside from those naval actions, you do not have much at all.

You would need the Mid East and Africa for those campaigns, and Lettow-Vorbeck was still fighting in November of 1918, and you cannot pass up the Arab Revolt and Allenby’s campaigns in the Mid East, nor Gallipoli.  The current Europe 1940 board would be about right, reset to 1914. Another option for a start would be the basic Attack Game board covering Europe and the Americas, and then redraw the boundaries.

I am talking to Table Tactics about doing some more WW1 tanks besides the Mark II that they have: the French Renault, maybe a British Whippet as a later war tank, the German A7V, and a Rolls-Royce armoured car for the Mid East.  Given the small size of most of your WW1 fighters, you probably would want to use 1/300 scale for the fighters, rather than 1/600.  I am checking with another company on Zeppelins, and they already do a nice blimp.  Get a mix of 1/2400 scale and 1/4800 scale WW1 ships, and you have the basis for a prototype.

For Countries in the Game, you have the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire on one side, and the British Empire, France, Italy, and a Russian/US player.  The US comes in with either the Russian Revolution or the use by Germany of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare.  I have thought of a couple of ways to trigger the Russian Revolution, with the option of preventing it if the Ottomans are knocked out soon enough.  Hard to say how to handle the Balkans, as Serbia has a claim to be in the game somehow, unless they are controlled by the Russian player until knocked out of the war.

There should be some nice naval actions between the German and UK, and the Italians, the Austrians, the French and the UK in the Med, with some chance for action in the Baltic and the Black Sea.  Not sure how to handle the stalemate on the Western Front as yet.  However, it is only 2011, so there is time yet.

Okay i get ya now. ya I know this isn’t like A&A. Thats why I like it.

I have studied extensively the economic dynamics of the added benefit of how nations faired following conquest, and concluded that the conquering player for the most part has not increased his total economic output from either liberation or conquest, and even to a lower degree has the nation that was invaded had lost any of its war making potential as a result of enemy occupied lands.

Cases:

German invasion of the Soviet Union only caused the Soviets to mobilize to a full war economy, moving potentially targeted areas (factories and industry) out of harms way. Secondly, even after the period of 1943-45 the Soviet economy rose at a even level in spite of having recaptured most if not all of her German occupied territories.

In Germany’s case she did benefit marginally with the conquest of france, because Vichy government was forced to pay for the war but this didn’t add nearly as much as the Germans slowly moving into a full wartime economy.

In the British case the loss of Singapore, parts of Egypt or Tobruk only served to embolden the conquerer and which served to deliver only a short term psychological blow to national morale.

Japan did benefit from the conquest of the Dutch colonies and was able to sustain her war from the newfound oil imports to offset the American oil embargo effects.

The invasion and liberation of France did not afford the allies with income, nor did it cost the Germans anything but prestige, a few lost U-boat bases, and some strategic air fields… but no tangible economic benefits other than the stoppage of some foodstuffs and payments from Vichy.

I think in all these cases they represent examples of only lost or gained oil reserves, but did not effect the production of airplanes, tanks, ships, or raising of new cadres of Infantry formations. In Germanys case conquered peoples offered a few divisions worth of volunteers but the effect was marginal.

All of this points to the direction that it may be more realistic and in fact solve some of the games issues, by  doing the following:

Each nation is established with a basic starting income and this does not change, except by possible investments into the economy to grow it to full war making potential.

what does this mean?

It means that for example the Soviets, Americans and Germans had economy that took time to mature and that can be presented in the game, by setting benchmarks to illustrate its growth over each turn or following the nations victory conditions.  For example: Germany avoids Moscow and instead takes the oil fields of Baku… they would be rewarded each turn with a set value in IPC, but otherwise they maintain the original income.

Secondly, note that each nation has DIFFERENT IPC starting values… so the question would also be how do the Axis try to get more money than what they start with?

They can invest in building the economy. Say they have 45 IPC basic income, they decide to save 10 IPC and you multiply the 10 IPC to the nations growth rate ( say Germany is at 50% growth rate) , so on all future turns her new starting figure will be at 50 IPC  ( remember: this is just an example).

possible benefits:

–Nobody is gonna keep taking stuff just to collect the money
–It saves alot of time to figure out what money you have
–it will boost SBR campaigns which done seem to really be part of the game
– it will encourage submarine warfare and ENR attacks
– All these silly invasions would keep happening
– effective elimination of a game phase ( collect income), also solving that issue about double collection.

Now im sure some of you will say it will extend the game and make it longer, but if you also adopt the all Axis/ All Allies move sequence the time is a washout.

Its a hybrid system with risk and AA. Takes about 3 hrs to play. Its been for sale for a number of years. I print a few every few months. Remember this is a large top quality map about 3 x 4 feet

didnt they get tanks 1915?
So just for the first couple of turns you would have no tanks.

very true…