‘88s’ – ANTI-TANK GUNS

World War 2 has seen many upgrades and a rapid development in tank technology. The british Comet, the US Pershing, the german Panzer VI.

To play this we have a heavy tank technology which can be made available after autumn 1942.
Tanks attack on a 4 instead of a 3 which makes them more dangerous on the battlefield.

I hope you enjoy our house rule and a lot of fun while testing.

There’s no official answer that I know of.  A&A is such an abstracted game that, in one sense, it would be meaningless to say that game unit X corresponds to real-world military (or naval) formation Y.  Given the scope of A&A Global 1940, however, the various unit types on the map would roughly correspond to large formations if we were to assume that the allocation of units in the rules corresponds to real WWII numbers.  As an example, Germany’s invasion of the USSR was carried out with over 150 divisions – so from that perspective, the small number of sculpts on the actual board could at best only correspond to army groups.  At that level, it shouldn’t even be possible to differentiate between the components of the army groups, nor even of their consitutent armies or corps; the highest-level tank formations in WWII were, I think, armoured divisions and (one level further down) tank brigades.  So one way to look at the game would be to imagine that we’re not actually seeing the military formations themselves, but rather a patchwork picture showing some of the elements of those formations, with some of these elements being high-level ones and others being lower-level ones (like tank brigades).

I would be simpler.
A1 if towed (M2 max), D1 each round against either Tank or Aircraft, not both in same round.
Cost 5

@CWO:

Just to toss an extra factor into this discussion, one should remember that (in real life) deploying a defensive minefield around a port isn’t consequence-free for the defender.  Such minefields help protect the port from penetration by enemy ships, but they also impair the port’s capacity to handle friendly ships because they have to waste time picking their way through the minefields, something which requires good minefield charts, slow speeds and careful navigation by the harbour pilots.

You are completely right about this, but as it is ports have no restrictions on use. A naval base could service 100 carriers as easily as a single submarine. Unless youre suggesting that friendly ships should roll for mines, I am not sure that this is practical. Perhaps the conversion of a peacetime harbor to a mine-infested, artillery-ridden military base should come with a restiction on the number of ships that can use its facilities a turn. Maybe 8? That begs the inclusion of a smaller piece (port? harbor?) that has the same capabilities of the naval base, but on a smaller scale, and with less cost.

@Baron:

I found this interesting questions:
It happens that I forget this situation in this alternate Sub Warfare.
I would try to provide a specific rules when I will find if it falls in the sub alone category (historical POV: subs are not protecting scrambling planes) or the subs+warships (game mechanics POV: there is another different friendly unit in the SZ) category:

@ShadowHAwk:

What would happen in this situation.

Transports dont move but load and then unload from the same SZ.
A hostile submarine is available in the SZ as well as a friendly destroyer and some planes. ( so you can load )
Now defender scrambles 1 fighter and hits the destroyer.
Attacker kills the fighter but fails to destroy the sub.

As we are in combat and the planes cant hit the sub and the sub cant hit the planes it is a stalemate there.
You cannot unload because there is still sea combat going on.
You cannot retreat because to retreat you have to move to a zone that your naval was comming from which is this SZ.

Will the transports be defenseless ?? They cant run and the sub cant die.

Since it is clear that the defender have the choice to scramble planes or not, this situation will be put in the Subs with warships. I added the correction in the initial post.
I rationalize it this way: subs are mobilized to stop invasion and the amphib. assault so, instead fleeing any contact with ennemy’s ship, they are seeking them instead. Hence, no need to go on Air Search Patrol to find defending subs.

So, ennemy’s planes can destroy subs even if there is no DD on their side. See the opening post.

@AlphaKappa:

 Which Neutral Powers would have the economic equivalent of a “Minor Industrial Complex”?

I think Spain, Turkey and Sweden are the obvious neutral powers that have a large enough industrial base to build their own tanks, planes and ships. Depending on how the sculpts are going to look, I think the Italian burnt orange will fit Spain, and maybe the french dark blue will fit Sweden. Turkey already got their units.

Maybe use the medium green for Brazil, and lime green to supply China.

Maybe even Canada can have own nation specific units ?

The Russian maroon will fit Mongolia I guess

@knp7765:

Hey Yavid,
You mentioned a mechanized AA gun but we currently don’t have a piece to represent them. When AMERIKA comes out we will. At least for Germany, Japan and US.

Sorry guys I had to do without a computer for a few weeks (long story).

But yeah I thought around the time the announcement for '42.2 was made and that AAA units were going to be a thing HBG would start putting AAA units in there sets. I had visions of Bofors and Quad .50 running through my head. Axis and Allies Minis has alot of good ideas on what units to make for a mobile AA gun. Half-tracks carrying Quad .50 Wirbelwind tanks stuff like that. But it looks like either it wasn’t thought of or discounted. So painting some Amerika pieces seems like what going to be what I’m doing.

Aircraft Carriers can be outfitted with technology to have AA Guns that fire just like ground based AA Guns.  Only one per sea zone may fire, but it may fire at each attacking enemy aircraft.

CV was a poor defender for anti-aircraft. They relied on CAP to intercept incoming planes at lower altitude to intercept these and drive them away from the fleet. The Carrier created an umbrella of air cover to protect in this manner. It could not stand up to much of a fight and was the weakest in terms of AA capabilities in WW2.

IN modern times this changed but not in ww2. At midway 3 Japanese carriers were sitting ducks because the air cover was lost fighting off waves of incoming torpedo-bombers, and the carriers had the best Japanese equipment money could buy and it didn’t mean a thing because they were unescorted by cruisers and enough supporting ships.

A BB was a slower moving ship and was meant not to engage fighters but to engage surface ships and having the slower speed could only hope to surprise the enemy from nowhere or fight on equal terms against other battleships. Cruisers were some of the fastest ships and much better suited to fight airplanes by escorting fast carriers that were vulnerable.

The only thing the BB should have is a first strike attack against other surface warships.

Cruisers should move 3 with carriers and have a AA gun at planes hitting at 1 on the first round.