Custom Setups

You have some interesting house rules. Thank you for the suggestion.

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but it’s been a crazy year.

I know that there is evidence of Dutch transports, and I’m not refuting that. I’m simply stating that the addition of a transport makes the new Dutch units too powerful on the game board, and grossly unbalances the game in favor of the Allies, which is a bad thing.

My solution, after play testing, is to give the Axis some units to balance it out, and I’ve edited my original post to reflect this.

@Caesar-Seriona said in G40 Benelux (Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg) Setup:

@JustLuthor:

@Herr:

I like the general idea though of course it would have to be carefully balanced. As for the units, I’m not much in favor of the tank in Scotland, for realism’s sake. The Dutch had one small tank at home. The Belgians did have a significant number of tanks but evacuating them to the UK was evidently impossible. Having two Benelux infantry units there is already more than enough compared to the French who were far more numerous.
Dutch New Guinea might have an infantry unit, though. Dutch resistance continued throughout the war there, and the Japanese never completely conquered that territory.

I can’t find it now, but in my research, I came across a Dutch tank unit raised in England after the fall of the Netherlands. For balance’s sake, maybe it should be 1 Artillery to represent Luxembourg’s limited contribution to the allied war effort. And maybe it should be only one infantry in England for both balance, and scale.

I couldn’t find any Dutch 1940 Order of Battle for Dutch New Guinea. I only found references to DNG being reinforced after Japan declared war. This is the best historical argument for a Dutch transport in the Pacific, though I still feel it should be up to ANZAC to ferry Dutch units around for balance’s sake, which is empirically more important than historical accuracy.

Another reason I don’t stress accuracy, is that it’s a slippery slope that eventually leads to completely revamping the game; not just the setup, but the map, and game mechanics as well. I would certainly like to do this for my own amusement, but it’s hard enough to get a game of Global going. I don’t want to compound that problem by creating an even more complicated game with 40-something countries, resources, trade agreements, diplomatic agreements, governments in exile, technology, a dozen new units, prison camps, espionage, sabotage, food rationing on the home front, and the Bretton Woods Conference.

Though I would totally play that game.

From my understanding of Luxembourg war effort against the Wehrmacht was the fact their nation did not have a military and only their capital city had some kind of defense and it was the cities police force that fought and surrendered (if I remember correctly) after a day of fighting. So as far as I know, no military campaign of any sort came from Luxembourg.

The Luxembourg government in exile did field a small artillery troop attached to the 1st Belgian Field Artillery Battery (specifically Troop C). They fought in Northern France, and Belgium.

Here is 12 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

So, we have a big pile of new units and new rules, how shall we set up the board? I propose the following new setup for A&A Classic.

List of abbreviations:
ACav - Armored Cavalry
AirT - Air Transport
AKA - (sea) Transport
BB - Battleship
Bmbr - Bomber
CA - Cruiser
CV - Aircraft Carrier
Ftr - Fighter
HArt - Heavy Artillery
Para - Paratrooper
SS - Submarine
Trpr - Trooper

This setup assumes that you are playing with the Cruisers from Post 1 (links to relevant posts added below), the Paratroopers and Air Transports from Post 2, the Armored Cavalry and Troopers from Post 3, and the Heavy Artillery from Post 4. The setup for Armored Cavalry, Troopers, and Heavy Artillery is ‘inspired’ by Ralph Boerke’s original setup for his Armored Cavalry, Troopers, and Heavy Artillery. This setup will place 1 Paratrooper and 1 Air Transport in the capital territories all nations, Germany will receive 1 additional Paratrooper and Air Transport in Rome (Southern Europe). This setup also assumes use of the “Boats Valve Fix” (BVF) proposed by D. A. Harrell from the mists of A&A history (I read about it from the re-post on Thrasher’s A&A page, which should give some history for those who remember Thrasher…). Also, this setup assumes the use of the variable British Sub setup. Furthermore, all CVs will receive a full complement of aircraft (2 Fighters) at setup; all sea zones with Transports or CVs will receive 1 Cruiser at setup, and all sea zones with Battleships will receive 1 (additional) Transport at setup.

@Boat:

In short, the Boat Valve Fix changes three things about Classic A&A - 1) optional “No Attack by Russia” made mandatory, 2) increase the number of German Subs in the Atlantic (off Western Europe) from 1 to 4, 3) increase the number of Japanese Transports in the Philippines Sea Zone from 1 to 4.

First, setup the game as normal. Nothing will be removed from the original setup. Then, add the noted pieces to the following territories as listed below:

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics
Russia (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, and 1 AirT
Karelia - 1 CA with SS and AKA already there
Sov. F. East - 1 Trpr and 1 ACav

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics

Germany
Germany (territory of) - 2 Trpr, 2 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 SS with SS and AKA already in the Baltic
Eastern Europe - 1 HArt
Ukraine - 1 ACav and 1 HArt
Southern Europe - 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 AKA added to the BB and AKA already at sea
Western Europe - 1 ACav, 1 HArt, and 3 SS added to the 1 SS already at sea
Libya - 1 ACav

Germany

United Kingdom
United Kingdom (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, 1 CA and 1 AKA added to the BB and AKA already at sea
Eastern Canada - 1 CA with AKA already there
India - 1 Trpr and 1 CA with AKA already there
Gibraltar - 1 AKA added to the BB already at sea
Egypt - 1 ACav, also - (The UK player has the option to move the 1 UK SS already off the coast of Egypt from the Med to the Red Sea (aka, the other side of the Suez Canal) at setup. Once USSR starts taking its turn, choice is set for that game.)

United Kingdom

Empire of Japan
Japan (territory of) - 1 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 Para, 1 AirT, and 1 CA, 1 SS, and 1 AKA with BB and AKA already at sea
Manchuria - 1 Trpr and 1 ACav
Fr. In. Burma - 1 ACav
Phil. I’s - 1 CA and 3 AKA added to the AKA already at sea
Kwangtung - 1 ACav
Caro. I’s - 1 CA, 1 Ftr, and 1 AKA with BB, CV, and Ftr already at sea
Solo. I’s - 1 SS added to the 1 SS already at sea

Empire of Japan

United States of America
Eastern US - 2 Trpr, 1 Para, 1 AirT, and 1 CA with AKA already at sea
Western US - 2 Trpr, 1 ACav, 1 HArt, 1 CA, 1 SS, and 1 AKA with BB and AKA already at sea
Hawaii - 1 CA, and 1 Ftr with SS, CV, and Ftr already at sea

United States of America

Posts
Post 1 - Cruisers - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41100.0
Post 2 - Paratroopers and Air Transports - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41101.0
Post 3 - Armored Cavalry and Troopers - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41157.0
Post 4 - Heavy Artillery - www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41158.0

One more post (Neutral Countries and what to be done with them), and I think I’ll have posted about all of my personal rule collection for Classic. Looking forward to wrapping all of this up and putting together a comprehensive rule book of changes.

-Midnight_Reaper

I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

Here is a picture.
I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

@Argothair:

Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png

Is there a link to boardgamegeek where these files are now located?!?!
Thanks!

@toblerone77:

I’m just going to say something here. Excluding your math Baron. The whole point of this rule was to open up a way for SBR against ICs with a loose historical basis. The loose historical depiction of night bombing was to give the attacker a less risky SBR but the penalty was less risk=less reward.

Given the basic concept, I think it is viable. I liked the idea of night fighters but thought it best to drop them. That’s my POV. An SBR that drops interceptors/escort could simulate this simply.

I encourage everyone to post as they like. Personally I like the idea of simply eliminating escorts and interceptors for night raids and reducing AA fire 1@D12. Damage totals are halved. That’s just what I like.

Everyone else, carry on.

Hi Toblerone77,
I don’t know if you play 1942 second edition, but within the optional rule for SBR escort and interception it becomes viable to have such thing as StB playing a role as Night-fighter, because the odds are clearly different from G40 during the regular SBR with escort: all Fgs and StB A1 first strike, while Fg D2.

All you have to do to implement a 1942.2 Night bombing & Night Fighter HR is this when playing with escort and interception optional rule:

Day SBR damage on IC becomes 1D6+2/StB, instead of just D6.

During 1942.2 Night SBR, the damage becomes D6-1/StB (or D6+2 halved rounding down, if you prefer).

In addition, all attacking StBs and defending StB Night-fighters roll a regular A/D@1, same as G40 SBR escort and interception rule.

The AAA fire @1 in both cases, Day or Night SBRs.

These 2 things will make all the basics 1:1, StB vs Fg/StB Night Fg, balance.

Day SBR:
StB vs AAA, damage + 4.583 - casualty 2.0 = +2.583 IPC damage/StB
StB vs Fg+AAA,  damage + 4.977 - casualty 4.777 = + 0.2 IPC damage/StB

Night SBR:
StB vs AAA, damage +2.083 - casualty 2.0 = +.083 IPC damage/StB
StB vs StB NF+AAA, damage +3.736 - casualty 3.667 = + 0.069 IPCs damage/StB run

So, Night SBR is better when there is more than 1 Fg defending an IC, and it is still an even match for both sides (near 0 IPC) to throw 1 StB against a StB NightF.

But, if there is only 1 Fg on the IC, the Day SBR is still positively better (.2 vs .069).

In addition, there is less StB and money in 1942.2 compared to G40, so there is lesser chance that StBs presence will forbids any Night SBR.

To summarize the viable SBR tactics with this 1942.2 HR:

No Fgs on IC, go for Day-SBR 2 or more Fgs on IC, go for Night-SBR unless there is more than 1 Night-Fg for 1 StB raider. Keeping a 1 Fg + (1 StB :1 Fg) advantage for Day bombing is better. Or staying within the 1 StB and 1 Fg vs 2 Fgs is the lower limit, it is still viable around 0.00 IPC/StB run.
So, going 1:1 vs Day or Night is almost the same risks involved, but with less damage & casualty in Night SBR.

What do you think of this?

Now, Night Bombing can be viable in both games.

Here is the calculation basis for this 1942.2 Night bombing with Night Fgs House Rule:

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
5/6 StB survived * 3.5 IPCs = 2.9 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *12 IPCs = -2 IPCs
Sum: 2.9 - 2 = +.9 IPC damage/StB

OOB 1942.2 SBR with D6 damage:
1 StB A1 first strike against 1 intercepting Fg D2

StB roll (D6)/Fg roll / AAA roll

161= 6/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg killed: 2.78%
165= 30/216 no casualty vs 1 Fg killed: 13.89%

526= 60/216 StB killed by Fg: 27.78%
541= 20/216 StB killed by AAA: 9.25%
545= 100/216 both survived: 46.3%

Results with :
60.19% * ((1+6) IPCs)/2= +3.5 IPCs) = 2.107 IPCs
16.67% killing Fg *+10 IPC = + 1.667 IPC
39.81% StB killed *-12 IPCs = - 4.777 IPCs

Sum: 3.774 - 4.777 = - 1.0 IPC damage/StB

1942.2 HR damage D6+2 : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = 4.583 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *12 IPCs = -2 IPCs
Sum: 4.583 - 2.0 = +2.583 IPC damage/StB

1942.2 SBR HR with D6+2 damage:
1 StB A1 first strike against 1 intercepting Fg D2

StB roll (D6)/Fg roll / AAA roll

161= 6/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg killed: 2.78%
165= 30/216 no casualty vs 1 Fg killed: 13.89%

526= 60/216 StB killed by Fg: 27.78%
541= 20/216 StB killed by AAA: 9.25%
545= 100/216 both survived: 46.3%

Results with :
60.19% * ((1+2) + (6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = 3.31 IPCs
16.67% killing Fg *+10 IPC = + 1.667 IPC
39.81% StB killed *-12 IPCs = - 4.777 IPCs
Sum: 4.977 - 4.777 = + 0.2 IPC damage/StB

HR for 1942 with StB as Nightfighter interceptor all A1/D1 as in G40 interception rule, damage at D6-1:

1 StB A1 vs 1 StB D1 doing interception

StB roll /Fg roll / AAA roll

116= 6/216 1 StB killed by StB NF vs 1 StB NF killed: 2.78%
151= 5/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 StB NF killed: 2.31%
155= 25/216 no casualty vs 1 StB NF killed: 11.57%

516= 30/216 StB killed by StB NF: 13.89%
551= 25/216 StB killed by AAA: 11.57%
555= 125/216 both survived: 57.87%

Results:
69.44% * ((0+5) IPCs)/2= + 2.5 IPCs) = 1.736 IPCs
16.67% killing StBNFg *+12 IPCs = + 2.00 IPC
30.55% StB killed *-12 IPCs = - 3.667 IPCs

Sum: 3.736 - 3.667 = + 0.069 IPCs damage/StB run

1942.2 HR damage D6-1: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
5/6 StB survived * 2.5 IPCs = 2.083 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *12 IPCs = -2 IPCs
Sum: +2.083 - 2 = +.083 IPC damage/StB

1942.2, damage D6+2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 first strike doing Day-SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

StB+Fg rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds   casualties

1/3636/361/6   = 36/7776      1 StB killed by AAA vs 2 Fgs : .5%
1/3636/365/6 = 180/7776      no casualty vs 2 Fgs : 2.3%

10/3612/361/6 = 120/7776    1 Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg : 1.5%
10/3612/365/6 = 600/7776    1 Fg  vs 1 Fg : 7.7%
10/3624/361/6=  240/7776    1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg : 3.1%
10/3624/365/6 = 1200/7776   no casualty vs 1 Fg : 15.4%

25/364/366/6   = 600/7776    1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fg vs no casualty : 7.7%
25/3616/361/6 = 400/7776    1 Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty : 5.2%
25/3616/365/6 = 2000/7776  1 Fg vs no casualty : 25.7%
25/3616/361/6 = 400/7776    1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty : 5.2%
25/3616/365/6 = 2000/7776   no casualty at all : 25.7%

Results:
Bombard on IC: 76.8% * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = 4.224 IPCs
Killing 2 Fgs: 2.8%+20 IPCs =   + 0.56 IPC
Killing 1 Fg: 27.7% +10 IPCs =  + 2.77 IPCs
Fg killed: 33.4%-10 IPCs =        - 3.34 IPCs
StB killed: 8.8%-12 IPCs =       - 1.056 IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 14.4%*-22 IPCs = - 3.168 IPCs

Sum: 7.554 - 7.564 = - 0.01 IPCs damage/StB

I’d like to know if anyone has developed an alternate setup for either AAR or AA50.  I am not looking for historical accuracy - I’m looking for a setup that produces the most exciting gameplay.
I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I like A&A not because it’s based on WW2, but because of the gameplay and mechanics. 
So, I’m looking for a setup that would enhance gameplay.  I can’t help but think that some “exciting” setup options are sitting on the cutting-room floor simply because they are not historically accurate.
Can anyone help?
Thanks.