Revised Amphibious Assualts

@Black_Elk:

I think we’d probably only need to go down to 12 ipcs for the cost of the factory to make it a viable purchase option in a place like Africa. Or if there was a 2 ipc space in Australia, a factory there might be feasible if they only cost 12. At 15 the only players that have much use for them are Japan and the USA.

For a while now, I have definitely been in favor treating IPC values more like “abstract game points” than actual industrial production, so I really don’t have an issue with concepts like increasing or decreasing the value of specific territories, if this serves the gameplay.

In the post above I tried to confine my suggestion to the one area of the gamemap that has been a consistent disappointment for me and that is the valueless Pacific. I know there are people who believe that these territories can be made “valuable” in other ways, but I just don’t see it. Until they have a value of 1 ipc, I think they will be ignored. USA has no strong incentive to take them, and Japan has no strong incentive to hold onto them. Just making them worth 1 would make all the difference.
That would put 6 ipcs into contention, in areas that the USA can reach early on, so the first 4 rounds of the game aren’t so boring to play as USA.

I picked the 5 Japanese territories that I feel should have a value of 1, due to their historical significance in the war. And Midway too, because it’s Midway! That’s 6 territories that are currently worthless, which would be brought into play. The island of Formosa is less important to me.

If I had my way, every territory on the map would have a minimum value of 1, but I would be happy enough if the main Pacific islands that were contested during the war had a value of 1. Basically I was trying to find a simple way to keep the game at a similar economic scale, but with a more compelling Pacific distribution.

I tend to agree with wittmann, USA feels pretty cash strapped compared with Japan. I think there are two ways you could approach it, either more total IPCs or more starting ground units in North America (so you don’t have to buy them.) I think either approach to balance might work.

I would like to see Hawaii at 2 as well, just to give the territory more potential significance as a factory location, or as a target/springboard for Japan against North America. I’m not looking for huge changes to the map, I think we could accomplish a lot just in the range of +1 or -1 ipc in a few specific places :)

If you add 3 IPCs to USA, rising the starting money to 45 IPCs, maybe you can give 31 IPCs to Japan. How?

+1 IPC to Hawaii, Midway and Alaska while keeping Central US at 6 IPCs.
(less change on the original board, simpler to make the calculations).
Now, Formosa can rise to 1 IPC. (All “No IPC” Islands have a worth of 1 IPC.) Simpler to calculate.

If you think USA need another 1 IPC (46 IPCs) gives 1 to Greenland. And all 0 IPC islands will have their value.

About VC IPCs bonus,
do you think it could be an interesting reward if a conqueror of a not initially owned VC received a +6 bonus IPCs only at the start of his next turn and as long as he holds it a complete round of play?
So this reward comes only after you kept it for a whole turn.
As long as the Victory City is exchange back and forth there is no reward.

If a lost VC is reconquered, it should be a one time +6 bonus to the one Nation which fought back to retrieve it, not the original owner.
For instance, UK captures Leningrad and the IPCs from territory goes to the Russian player,
while UK gets the one time 6 IPCs bonus if Leningrad is still kept in Allies hands at the beginning of UK’s next turn.
Of course, if it is Russia who retrieve Leningrad, Russia will also get his one time extra bonus on his next turn.
We can apply the same mechanics and bonus for Capital Cities.
There is no need to add a higher reward since you already get the opponent’s money.

So this will be a separate IPCs distribution from all others regular and NO calculations.
VC would be treated differently compared to other ordinary conquered territories.

And players will be waiting with expectations to see if they can hold the VC till their next turn to get their rewards.
This will somehow put the emphasis on Victory Cities.
And it gives time to the opponents to not let go a VC too easily since the stakes are high.
It is a 6 IPCs bonus because it is easier to spent right away to not disturb a well prepared buying strategy if at the last minute the bonus is lost.
You can buy 2 Infs or 1 Tank or 1 Sub.
What do you guys think about this? Still a too high reward?

Maybe it should be just a 4 IPCs bonus? especially if playing 1942.2.
So you can at least buy right away an additional Artillery.

@Imperious:

The map should be marked for possible landing sites. It is not a fact that major landings could take place “anywhere”.
True but it is too much zoom-in tactical level geography.
Let’s suppose the amphibious assault is made in an appropriate places.
The bad or good luck of the first roll of dices in combat is making for a good or bad landing place.

First, the attacker should only be able to attack with infantry only on the first round ( and air units). This would be rolled after SB is performed.
AAA fire then Shore Bombardment are the first two steps. At a tactical level, artillery and armor have a bad moment to pass through during landing phase. The issue is to figure it all at strategical level and keep balance.
I suggested this penalty can be enough:
instead of saying all A1 for the first round of an Amph. Assault
Just say all attacking ground units get -1A to a minimum of A1, for the first round.
Hence, Artillery get A1.
But, at least Armor can get A2.
And according to this HR, even an Inf getting A2 for being paired with Art is reduced to A1.  
But, at a strategical level, the SB can give a little support to Infantry unit trying to land.
That’s why:

During the first round of an Amph. Ass.
Destroyer, on a 1:1 basis, give +1A boost to 1 Infantry unit.
Cruiser,  on a 1:1 basis, give +1A boost to 1 Infantry unit, in addition to the shore bombardment.
Battleship, on a 1:2 basis, give +1A, to up to 2 Infantry units, in addition to the shore bombardment.

So the warships heavy guns can make a difference (even Destroyer’s one), on landing round.

Second, Defending Infantry and Artillery should fire preemptively ( loses taken first do not fire in subsequent rounds)
This is a tough one, do we give it to Artillery unit only or to both units?
Here I followed Razor and also you, at the strategical level, and for balance (too much Inf vs Art), and for simplicity and also because 1914 give it only to Artillery unit. And it will be a weaker ones however:
All Artillery units get a preemptive strike (like subs) against incoming units.

Third, all remaining attacking units roll, then remaining

The attacker should be able to retreat, however all mech units are converted into infantry ( they leave the beaches with equipment…ala Dunkirk)
That one is new. It is alien to A&A system to convert 1 unit into another.
However, a retreat possibility could be interesting…
But usually the better units will survived last. This means it will probably be armor or artillery…

Instead, it can be something like this:
If amphibious assault units needs to retreat (at the beginning of the round), attacker must loose 1 Armor unit or 1 Art unit before any other 1 casualty.
Basically, attacker must loose 1 additional ground unit (the costlier and valuable one), and this unit cannot fire, then return the surviving units on landing barge (transports).
On most occasion this will mean 1 armor unit, an A3D3, 6 IPCs unit.

Thanks for this idea about amphibious assault retreat.

It can even more create an incentive for the defender, to throw an air/naval assault on transports to get ride of the surviving retreating units. Rarely see, ground troops going into the bottom of the ocean with transports units.

Anniversary Extension

I think this sounds like a surgery.

like Eastern Europe isn’t adjacent to Turkey nor Black Sea
but your title mentions “revised”

oh wow. thats not how i played it. Otherwise Germany can build fighters and get all her planes instantly as jets?

thats really strong Tech….

Perhaps you can convert one fighter per turn or build a new fighter that will be a jet?

FYI this project has been scraped and we are moving forward with a 2 phase “historical edition”  its possible that some of the NA’s will be used and developed by members of our group.

Commanders (based on d12 system)
Each major power can have one or more military commanders that affect the outcome of battles. Each turn one commander unit is placed in a territory you wish to attack and can affect a +1 modifier on attack or defense for the sum of combat units equal to its leadership value for the duration of combat rounds. Each nation begins with commanders as follows:

Germany:
Hitler          8
Manstein    9
Runstedt    8
Rommel    10
Guderian    6

Italy:
Kesselring    7
Badoglio      4

Finland
Mannerheim    6

U.S.S.R:
Stalin              7
Zhukov          8
Timoshenko  7

United Kingdom:
Montgomery      7
Alexander          5

Japan:
Tojo                  7
Yamamoto*    10
Nagumo*          8
Yamashita        7

U.S.A.
Patton              9
Eisenhower    8
Nimitz*          7
Macarthur      7

Note: The engaged commander remains in the territory till the end of the turn. If enemy forces choose to counterattack and capture the territory  then that commander is considered killed in battle and cannot be replaced. All Leaders can only affect land battles except the leaders with * which can effect battles on the sea.