Well, not necessarily. What if the US suddenly came up with B-2 bombers, Abrams tanks and Terminator foot soldiers?
Well, not necessarily. What if the US suddenly came up with B-2 bombers, Abrams tanks and Terminator foot soldiers?
Those would take a pretty substantial research effort to produce with 1940s technology…but at least the M1 Abrams has the advantage of being available from HBG:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Modern-Tank-M1A1-Abrams_p_431.html
Excellent way to bring us back to topic. Nice!
Hey guys,
Thanks to HBG, we are getting a wider array of units that we can incorporate into our existing A&A armies and navies. I have been working on a list of values and have run into a few problems. I am also dabbling with moving to a D12 system since it gives more options to squeeze in some units.
One problem I am having is early war vs. late war equipment. Like Russian fighters: OOB gave us the Yak 3 (late war) and HBG gave us the I-16 (early war). The Yak 3 was a very good fighter and could compete with the Luftwaffe fighters but the I-16 performed very poorly by comparison. So I first thought early war fighters should be Att 2, Def 3, Move 4, Cost 8-9. Then I thought the P-40 was also considered early war and it was a pretty decent fighter. Plus, the Germans had the Me 109 since the beginning and it was top notch. So how do you distinguish different early war fighters?
Another problem is early war vs. late war battleships. OOB gives us the USS Iowa (late) and HBG gives us the USS Nevada (early). I understand the differences in the actual ships, but what would be the differences for game purposes?
Here are some of my ideas going from cruisers to battleships:
D6 A D M C D12 A D M C
Light Cruiser 3 2 2 10 6 4 2 10
Heavy Cruiser 3 3 2 12 6 6 2 12
Pocket Battleship 4 3 2 14 7 5 2 14
Battle Cruiser ? ? 2 16 7 6 2 16
Battleship (early) ? ? 2 18 7 7 2 18 2 hits to sink
Battleship (late) 4 4 2 20 8 8 2 20 2 hits to sink
Heavy Battleship 4 4 2 24 8 8 2 24 3 hits to sink
So there are a few of my ideas. Do any of you agree with them? Or, perhaps have any suggestions?
I was also wondering if Battle Cruisers and Pocket Battleships should be considered the same class or different. I think Battle Cruisers were heavier armored and armed than Pocket Battleships, which were sometimes considered very heavy cruisers. Also, should Battle Cruisers also take 2 hits to sink? Any other differences between early war BBs, late war BBs and Heavy BBs? Any ideas would be welcome.
Extending the list of purchasable units to different levels of light and heavy or elite status could serve to bog the game down a bit and just make it more complicated. I mean after all, few people have the resources to buy OOB battleships or the desire to buy cruisers, let alone all of these variants. This also may be my preference for using a 6-sided die; there are only so many numbers to use. It does limit the differences in unit types.
But maybe that is just me… My intent has always been to use whatever units HBG makes as doubles for the OOB, mostly regardless of their wartime status. So a Nevada-class battleship would be like a normal battleship 4-4-20. An I-16 would be the same as a Yak 3 and so on.
However, in looking at your chart for ships, I will say that I do like it. Ships are one area where I can really see this working (as opposed to fighters or even tanks). I would like to see heavy battleships and heavy carriers as purchasable unit types.
The real challenge will be for some less historically minded people in identification of what class of ships are on the board. It is easy to tell the difference between a battleship and an aircraft carrier, but what about a light cruiser and a heavy cruiser? A light cruiser and a destroyer? A battlecruiser and a cruiser or a battleship? Really I am not so worried about that, if anything the confusion should be entertaining.
Or, what if there are two different sculpts for essentially the same unit type? For example: what if (and very likely) HBG produces two light carrier designs for the US or Japan (or what if one is called and escort carrier and the other a light carrier)? Will you try to differentiate them or use them interchangeably as a light carrier?
A simple solution is the best solution. But at least we have variety.
I was also wondering if Battle Cruisers and Pocket Battleships should be considered the same class or different. I think Battle Cruisers were heavier armored and armed than Pocket Battleships, which were sometimes considered very heavy cruisers. Also, should Battle Cruisers also take 2 hits to sink? Any other differences between early war BBs, late war BBs and Heavy BBs? Any ideas would be welcome.
I’m not experienced at converting historical ship data into game combat values, so I’ll just provide some background information on the ship types you’ve asked about.
The Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe (which the British press nicknamed pocket battleships) were an odd hybrid of several ship types. They had 11-inch guns like a first-generation German dreadnought battleship or battlecruiser, carried fewer of those guns than a typical battlecruiser (and much fewer than a battleship), were about the size of a heavy cruiser, were only moderately fast by cruiser standards (though they did have a very long range), and had weak armour protection roughly on the scale of a light cruiser. They can most concisely be described as over-gunned and under-armoured heavy cruisers.
Battlecruisers were notoriously easier to sink compared with battleships, as demonstrated by the Battle of Jutland in WWI and the destruction of the Hood in WWII. This is hardly surprising because battlecruisers traded protection for speed: they had less armour (and fewer guns) than battleships, but were faster. For a battleship, the rule of thumb for a balanced design was that the armour protection had to be proportional to its own firepower, meaning adequate enough to allow the vessel to fight against another battleship carrying guns of the same caliber as its own. Battlecruisers, by contrast, were unbalanced designs – in the most extreme cases, they were eggshells armed with hammers. (One oddity was the Scharnhorst class, which reversed the usual battlecruiser philosophy: they were over-armoured relative to their original 11-inch guns because they were intended to be uprated to 15-inch guns at a later date.)
One final note about battlecruisers concerns the odd situation of the United States. On the one hand, the US demonstrated that the battlecruiser concept was pointless when it built the Iowa class. The Iowas showed that, with WWII-era technology and a good design, you could combine the firepower and the armour protection of a battleship with the speed of a battlecruiser (and indeed superior to that of most battlecruisers). On the other hand, the US – which had never previously completed any battlecruisers – became the last nation ever to build them when it produced the Alaska class 12-inch gun super-heavy cruisers. They were fine ships but a poor investment: no faster than the Iowas (33 knots), but much weaker in firepower and armour. The US would have been better off completing Illinois and Kentucky, the planned third pair of Iowas.
In terms of early and late battleships, the dividing line would roughly be between battleships built prior to about 1930 and those built afterwards. The pre-1930 ships were mostly of WWI vintage, with a few additions in the 1920s. They’re usually described as “slow battleships,” reflecting the fact that, at that time, you generally had to choose between power (battleships) and speed (battlecruisers) in your designs. The battleships from the 1930s and 1940s are known as “fast battleships” because they were much faster than WWI-vintage battleships; fast battleships could make at least 27 knots, and several classes (notably the Iowas and the Littorios) could do even better than that. So that’s one way to divide battleships. Another way of dividing them would be into a European group and a Pacific group. This has nothing to do with A&A Europe and A&A Pacific (though it’s a nice coincidence), but rather reflects the fact that the most modern battleships used by Britain, France, Germany and Italy during WWII tended to be smaller in size and armament (typically 14-inch and 15-inch guns) than the ones used by the US and Japan, which were bigger in size and armament (mostly 16-inch guns, with some 14-inch ones). The 18-inch Yamatos, however, were glaring statistical outliers, so they deserve their own category. The same case could be made for the Iowas, which hold the speed record for battleships and whose 16-inch main guns (50-caliber-length weapons firing very heavyweight shells) delivered an armour-piercing punch which was not all that much smaller than that of the Yamatos, which were shorter (thus producing less muzzle velocity) and which fired AP shells which had a smaller weight-to-size ratio.
That was excellent Marc.
Thank you.
I would like to post my D6 list eventually but have not really had time to play test all of it. The other issue is many of the D6 rules are dependent upon owning most if not all the battle pieces HBG sells. I also want to wait for the Japanese sets to be in hand.
That being said, I plan to use the early war BBs as a re-fitted battleship it has all the same stats as an OOB BB but it has only one hit and reduced cost.
Some of the stats for D6 can come from a game on tripleA called 1941that I really liked. It features a lot of the pieces HBG sells.
Lastly pieces such as paratroopers and heavy bombers can be used once techs are achieved. I like them available as purchase rather than rolled and as I’ve stated I’m working just having them available from the start.
Guys,
––While I agree with most everything said above,…I would simply like to mention a few key points that we would all be better off to remember:
1.) Axis & Allies is a GAME. A strategic level game that we all love. And as a game system there might be
decisions made that would NOT reflect historical accuracies as such, but would be correct for gameplay realities. For example a Japanese Zero fighter a/c in real life had a longer range and weaker defenses than say an American Hellcat fighter a/c. But in our GAME,….they are equal in all of their A/D/C/M factors.
2.) I, like many players, plan on buying any/all units made by HBG and FMG whether they are just better detailed units simply replacing the OOB units,….or to be used as completely NEW UNIT TYPES. And there are many reasons to buy these new unit types.
3.) I think many players will incorporate at least a few of these new unit TYPES with new A/D/C/M factors to add depth and/or more interest in their games. However, IMHO players should put quite a bit of thought into how much COMPLICATION that they are adding to their gaming experience beforehand in order to improve their game rather than possibly detracting from it with too many additional A/D factors, not to mention simply identifying all of the multitudes of small new units.
–IMHO when adding new unit types I believe moving to a 12-sided dice system is preferable. HBG has several types and colors of these for sale.
–Also, IMHO, having as few different Attack and Defense factors as necessary is helpful.
–Just because the new unit types are available, each player/group should seriously consider what and/or how many new unit types they would benefit from adding rather than possibly overly complicating things for themselves by adding everything. Having said that, I plan on having several “grand” versions of A&A games that would include all (or most) of the new unit types.
–In some of the entirely new games I’m planning there will be a few additional unit types that nobody else has probably thought of, such as Fighter-Bombers, Attack a/c, Long-range Artillery, etc. In combination with these new unit types I also am considering splitting all a/c into strategic or tactical categories. Strategic a/c being heavy, medium, light bombers that can ONLY bombard targets such as air & naval bases, factories, etc. but NOT armies. Tactical a/c would be able to bomb all army/navy/land forces.
–IMHO it is very important to be able to quickly IDENTIFY all of the unit types that are involved in any game from several feet away. All of my units will be painted and/or labelled making identifying all of the different types a fairly straightforward process. But if you are not painting your units you’ll need to devise a “system” that allows you to quickly and easily distinguish between all of the differing unit types. For example:
––My German a/c that are almost completed will have “Alpha” decals on them that mark the type of unit it is, like:
A…attack…none yet
E…early fighter…ME-109
F…fighter…FW-190
J…jet fighter…ME-262
L…long range fighter…ME-210
D…bomber, dive…JU-87
M…bomber, medium…HE-111, JU-88
H…bomber, heavy…JU-488
R…reconnaissance…DO-17
T…transport…JU-52
–Along with these “Alpha” decal markings will be the size and/or colors used. For example, ONLY the air transports will utilise White colorings so as to mentally connect them with White parachutes. As air transports are potentially game-changing units they will additionally have White wingtip markings to announce there presence. Yellow, Red, and No color will mark different groups of the same a/c types. The SIZE of the colorings can also help denote the major types, Bombers having small colored markings and the faster fighter units having larger colored areas. Please refer to the pic below. NOTE: These are only prototypes in process and aren’t completely finished yet. BTW, Lucas Hoffman is the painter.
–A similar type of decal “marking” should be just as successful with the different types of armored vehicles, ships, etc.
This is a very interesting topic of discussion and I’m sure several people have many worthwhile ideas that I’d we could all benefit from.
“Tall Paul”
First I want to thank all you guys for your ideas, suggestions and information. CWO Marc, very interesting material there on the differences between those ships. I knew the Pocket Battleships were way lighter armored than battleships or battle cruisers, but I didn’t realize just how lightly armored they were.
Tall Paul, those planes are beautiful. Sometimes I wish I had the time and patience to do that to my pieces.
Yeah, I understand that I may be biting off more than I can chew figuring out new A/D values for all the new units HBG is giving us. In fact, trying to differentiate early war and late war units like fighters and battleships is straying close to A&A Miniatures territory. The reason I don’t play the Miniatures games is because of too many values for each unit. Too many things to remember. Now here I am trying to do the same thing to the A&A board games. I was even considering using older OOB Iowa BBs as North Carolina class BBs, which were basically shorter versions of the Iowa class. How on earth would I differentiate between those two?
Perhaps I would do better in most cases to follow LHoffman’s advice and treat the majority of these units simply as alternate versions of our current units. I’m not even sure that I will ever employ stuff like “elite” troops in my games anyway (SS, Guards, etc.).
I still have some good ideas for things like self propelled artillery and tank destroyers. Someone had the idea for tank destroyers if they roll a 1, they can pick enemy armor as casualties. That seems like a good idea. Do you think that would work for dive and/or torpedo bombers too?
Thanks again everyone.
I still have some good ideas for things like self propelled artillery and tank destroyers. Someone had the idea for tank destroyers if they roll a 1, they can pick enemy armor as casualties. That seems like a good idea. Do you think that would work for dive and/or torpedo bombers too?
That is an interesting option too, especially with dive/torpedo bombers. They would be too powerful if they were allowed to target all hits, but if they roll a 1 they should be able to target their hits. Makes them more valuable and more historically accurate.
After all, in the Battle of Midway, USN aircraft sank all 4 Japanese fleet carriers with targeted attacks from torpedo and dive bombers. We should be able to do that in A&A too. I’d rather be able to assign hits with ones than hit on a 4… otherwise you just waste a bunch of planes to sink subs, destroyers and cruisers and leave the enemy carriers untouched.
I suppose we are getting into house rule territory here though.
I still have some good ideas for things like self propelled artillery and tank destroyers. Someone had the idea for tank destroyers if they roll a 1, they can pick enemy armor as casualties. That seems like a good idea. Do you think that would work for dive and/or torpedo bombers too?
That is an interesting option too, especially with dive/torpedo bombers. They would be too powerful if they were allowed to target all hits, but if they roll a 1 they should be able to target their hits. Makes them more valuable and more historically accurate.
After all, in the Battle of Midway, USN aircraft sank all 4 Japanese fleet carriers with targeted attacks from torpedo and dive bombers. We should be able to do that in A&A too. I’d rather be able to assign hits with ones than hit on a 4… otherwise you just waste a bunch of planes to sink subs, destroyers and cruisers and leave the enemy carriers untouched.
I suppose we are getting into house rule territory here though.
You will see a luck shot in “Amerika” where you can target certain units. There will be a phase where aircraft must fight first after AA is rolled before other items happen. I think you should be able to target ships but defending aircraft must be able to shoot first!
Yeah, I understand that I may be biting off more than I can chew figuring out new A/D values for all the new units HBG is giving us. In fact, trying to differentiate early war and late war units like fighters and battleships is straying close to A&A Miniatures territory. The reason I don’t play the Miniatures games is because of too many values for each unit. Too many things to remember. Now here I am trying to do the same thing to the A&A board games.
Finding the right balance between complexity and playability is something with which wargame designers have wrestled since wargaming began: when complexity goes up, playability tends to go down (and vice-versa). But the nice thing about the A&A board games is that individual players can customize them in any way they want, if they so wish. You can make them as simple or as complicated as you want, especially now that we have such a large range of OOB and supplementary HBG sculpts available to us. And if you try out one customized rule system that turns out not to work so well, you can always change it later for something else. Ultimately, it all comes down to having fun with a game we all love; as long as you’re enjoying yourself, that’s what really matters.
@CWO:
And if you try out one customized rule system that turns out not to work so well, you can always change it later for something else. Ultimately, it all comes down to having fun with a game we all love; as long as you’re enjoying yourself, that’s what really matters.
True that. There is no recipe for everyone.
knp & others,
First I want to thank all you guys for your ideas, suggestions and information. CWO Marc, very interesting material there on the differences between those ships.
––It would probably be a safe bet that most, if not all, of the gamers on this forum have a strong and addictive love of this great game and enjoy sharing that with others also afflicted.
Tall Paul, those planes are beautiful. Sometimes I wish I had the time and patience to do that to my pieces.
––As I said above, Lucas Hoffman deserves the credit for doing these paint jobs. On these a/c I am simply the “Idea Man” who organises the projects and then pays the bills. I’ve spent over $300 so far on decals alone and we’ve only completed about 30%-40% of the units I want. I hope I live long enough,…haha.
Yeah, I understand that I may be biting off more than I can chew figuring out new A/D values for all the new units HBG is giving us.
––Not necessarily. My main point was simply to make you aware of OVER-COMPLICATING things by adding everything all at once. A very wise friend of mine once said,…“If you’re having FUN, you’re doing it right!” You simply must experiment with what additions/changes make it more FUN for YOU and/or YOUR GROUP. That is the ONLY answer that matters.
I still have some good ideas for things like self propelled artillery and tank destroyers. Someone had the idea for tank destroyers if they roll a 1, they can pick enemy armor as casualties. That seems like a good idea. Do you think that would work for dive and/or torpedo bombers too?
––I, too, completely agree that any tank destroyers, dive, or torpedo bombers who roll a “1” should have the ability to target their hit. Obviously the TD must target an armored, tracked, or wheeled vehicle and a “Torpecker” must hit a ship. IMHO, a lot of players have already decided on this change also,…and are simply waiting to have all of these units available for all countries to institute the new rules.
Thanks again everyone.
––Thank YOU! I strongly believe we ALL can add to each others’ enjoyment of this great game!
“Tall Paul”
Got my Kickstarter pledge in yesterday. Sure hope the funding works. Really want to see that Amerika game.
By the way, anyone else collecting the HBG coaster roundels? I’ve got all six so far. The reverse sides with the alternate roundels looks a little weird to me, like we are in an alternate history universe or something. Hey, maybe those roundels could be for Amerika.
By the way, I noticed on the HBG site that NO orders will be shipped Aug 14-18 because the staff will be at GenCon. I guess that means the Aug 15 date for the Japanese Supplement set has now become Aug 19. Oh well, I guess a few more days won’t kill me.
Thanks for the support on Kickstarter! Things are looking pretty good, but we still have a long way to go. Keep up the good work on getting the word out.
Also, we have gone back and forth with the minis manufacturer on issues with the Japan Set. We are not yet happy with the test pieces so are a bit behind schedule on those. Will let everyone know when we have a better idea on ship date.
ISSUES!?! AARGH! I don’t like to hear about issues. That’s simply another word for DELAYS!
I know you guys are making sure these pieces are of the best possible quality for us and I really appreciate that. It’s just…that…I really, really want my new pieces dang it.
Well, to tell the truth, I’m really looking forward to the expansion set anyway, and I know they will be further down the road after the supplement set. Maybe you will work out all the kinks with the supplement set and the expansion set will come out much smoother, not to mention the new Amerika pieces.
By the way, on the expansion set for Japan, did that I-400 submarine replace the extra set of Type 1 Ho-Ha halftracks? I thought we were supposed to get the Ho-Ha in both the supplement and expansion sets.
Well, to tell the truth, I’m really looking forward to the expansion set anyway, and I know they will be further down the road after the supplement set. Maybe you will work out all the kinks with the supplement set and the expansion set will come out much smoother, not to mention the new Amerika pieces.
I think the two Japanese sets are the first ones that HBG is producing using the computer-modeling technology to which they’ve moved, so my guess is that the issues are just temporary transitional ones. As you say, once the kinks have been worked out it should be smooth sailing thereafter.
