Adapting A&A1914 rules for G40

The idea to create units in contested territory’s would be amazing.

Think about it:

We could have a Stalingrad
There ‘could’ be a much bigger battle for France
Sea-lion would be very difficult
China would be awesome

Anyway.

3 rounds for combat is a bit much. A single round is just fine.
We just need to add some blitzkrieg mechanics for everyone.

I like the mines, but ships in G40 are much more expensive than their 1914 counter-parts. Mines will be much more devastating.

I liked the dog-fighting as well. But it should be as many rounds as it needs to be.
Any and all bombers should not be allowed to participate in ground bombing until your side gains air-supremacy.
If you are unable to get air-supremacy, then all remaining enemy fighters get to shoot at your bombers @1. After that, all bombers are considered to have retreated.

@ossel:

@1Bean432:

The idea to create units in contested territory’s would be amazing.

Think about it:

We could have a Stalingrad
There ‘could’ be a much bigger battle for France
Sea-lion would be very difficult
China would be awesome

Anyway.

3 rounds for combat is a bit much. A single round is just fine.
We just need to add some blitzkrieg mechanics for everyone.

I like the mines, but ships in G40 are much more expensive than their 1914 counter-parts. Mines will be much more devastating.

I liked the dog-fighting as well. But it should be as many rounds as it needs to be.
Any and all bombers should not be allowed to participate in ground bombing until your side gains air-supremacy.
If you are unable to get air-supremacy, then all remaining enemy fighters get to shoot at your bombers @1. After that, all bombers are considered to have retreated.

What do you mean by “create units?” The concept in 1914 was sort of more along the lines of leaving a battle unresolved, as opposed to rolling it out until the end like traditional A&A. I was suggesting that if the battle went on for 3 attacker/defender rolls (that number can be tweaked, but I don’t think it should be 1), it would mean that both sides were too well dug in (a la Stalingrad) and that the battle would remain unresolved.

Ok, ok i should of been clearer

I meant you could still create units from factories in contested territory’s. Since Stalingrad has a factory, the battle could potentially become just like its real life counterpart.

Being able to create units at these contested territory’s (that have factories) for a country like Russia is a big bonus.

As for the multi-round battle thing, battles either end in a single round, or go on, and on.

If a player is unable to roll enough dice to 1 hit all the defenders units, then the battle would clearly be epic enough to last a bit longer than 3 rounds.

To offset the slow going of 1 round combats, there should be a blitzkrieg/breakthrough mechanic.

I like the concept, but this is going to bog things down to the point that the Axis doesn’t stand a chance.

They need to make quick gains in order to win.

France will have an income for 2 or 3, or possibly 4 turns.

@ossel:

@Gargantua:

I like the concept, but this is going to bog things down to the point that the Axis doesn’t stand a chance.

They need to make quick gains in order to win.

France will have an income for 2 or 3, or possibly 4 turns.

Yeah, that’s my only worry. However much the 1914 version accurately depicted WWI combat, the game plays incredibly SLOW (justifiably so), and this simply wasn’t the case in WWII. However, there were instances (Stalingrad is one) where offensives got bogged down for longer periods of time. The rule would need to be crafted such that it accurately represented what actually happened.

If an attack force attacks a defending force that has a lower number of total troops than the attacking force, then the defending force can suffer a ‘breakthrough’

Any attacking Tank that rolls a hit during combat is able to ‘breakthrough’ and can move to any adjacent territory, and conduct battle again.
A tank can only breakthrough once per turn

Mech Infantry are allowed to make breakthroughs on a 1:1 ratio with tanks.

Or maybe there could be an ‘overrun’ mechanic.
Where the attacker can choose to suffer from more casualties, for more rounds of dice rolling.
This would stop the awkward ‘1 remaining Infantry squad stops 2 entire armies for 6 more months’ thing.

I really like the dog fighting rules for G40

I think 3 rounds max is about right. It reflects the greater mobility of forces in this war.

It forces the attacker to calculate how many units he needs to send in to complete the victory within 3 combat rounds and hold on to at least contested status, rather than using just enough to win the battle “eventually”.

This in turn means (usually) concentrating on one big attack per round, rather than just enough to take 3 or 4 tts in unlimited combats. I would also combine this with collect income moved to the start of a player’s turn. Overall I think the “one big attack” is more historical than 3 or 4 money grabs in tts you’ll probably lose immediately. It forces players to think a little further ahead, which makes it a better game as well as better play strategically.

Regarding dog fights, perhaps it should be optional for the defender to send up aircraft to contest supremacy; he might decide to forgoe the advantage to save his airforce.

Regarding balance, perhaps it exaggerates inital Axis advantage in that it is easier for them to assemble forces large enough to win 3 round combats, and takes the Allies rather longer to concentrate armies large enough to do so; that is its much harder for the Allies to take back what the Axis conquers, thus extending the “tipping point” beyond which the Axis has effectively lost its chance.

Few more thoughts:

Do we still allow attacker retreats i.e. strafing? Or must the attack be followed through.

Depends a lot on how aircraft are handled. In this version they must be able to land back in controlled tt, otherwise no aircraft in naval battles, which is silly. But that invites what become in effect strafing attacks, as you can attack with massed aircraft to kill off defenders, then land your precious planes well back behind the front line leaving a few infantry to contest the tt.

Should attacking planes even be permitted to land in newly contested areas; maybe the infrastructure needed for air units to operate is considered too complex to allow this.

Essentially to eliminate the anomaly of tts that change hands generating double (or more) the income in a round, and the “money grab” attacks on tts you have no real hope of retaining - that is you should have to hold a tt an entire round to collect money from it.

Admittedly the problem is not as acute using contested tt rules, that is in general tts that are fought over now tend to generate less income, which is surely more realistic.

But CT rules need a major rethink for WWII in regard to aircraft movement and landing restrictions.

Only a fool leaves aircraft on his front lines.

The point is you could use aircraft to impose contested status on a tt with very little risk to your own units. This changes the whole dynamic of CTs and needs to be tested a lot.

another problem with your scenario is your losing how many ipcs in fighters to gain what 2, 3 ipcs for the one turn?

Remember we’re dealing with a rule where the combat last a maximum of 3 rounds.

Of course you’re not sending in just 1 infantry - you’d use enough to soak up hits and leave 1 behind to contest - the important thing is your fighters can score big hits and then in effect retreat beyond enemy range, something that does not apply in 1914 rules.

Another big difference is in tanks - since you cannot straff they will always be left vulnerable to counter attack, so its questionable if they’re worth buying over fighters.

You wouldn’t gain any ipcs, since you only collect at the start of a turn. The point is to deny the enemy income by contesting several tts with hit and run(fly away) attacks.

I am thinking among the same lines myself.

CONTESTET TERRITORIES
I figure the attacker should have 3 options. After the first round he can press attack, stay or retreat. Just as in the real war, it should be your choice if you want to continue the attack until the territory is conquered, or you want to stop the battle but stay in the territory to contest it, or just retreat. Remember that a territory is large as a country, and a turn is 3 months, and there was no phase during the real WWII where Germany or Russia vacated Poland with a small force, just to trade it back and forth, like we usually see in A&A games.

THE BATTLEBOARD
The 1914 Battleboard is perfect for WWII. G40 infantry should att at 2 and def at 3, because a 1940 infantry division had a lot more firepower than the 1914 infantry counterpart. And the 1940 tank should absorb two hits, because the maneuver warfare tactic was to break through the enemy line at the weak point, and then cut off the enemy supply, and this made few casualties but big surrenders. On the other hand, the classic assault with artillery barrage and infantry charges was a meat grinder with lots of casualties, and no surrender. So yes, artillery hit on 4 or less, they are the King of the battlefield, and tank hit on 2 but can absorb 2 hits.

DOGFIGHT
Yes, you must fight for air superiority before the ground battle. I think fighters should cost 6 or 8, and att 1 and def 2, both in air combat and later in ground strafing. This will be historically correct. Then the Stuka can hit ground units on a 3, or on a 4 if combined with a tank. And the bomber should carpet bombard huge infantry stacks, maybe like the classic AA gun, roll one dice for each inf, every 1 a hit. I also believe that an airbase should be able to scramble 3 fighters to an adjacent territory under attack, and not just seazones.

AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULTS
I love the 1914 rule that give the defending artillery a preemptive roll against amphibious assaulting ground units. This is exactly how it was on Dday and every other landing during both WWs. Maybe even the inf should attack on 1 in the first round of a landing, since the tanks don’t absorb hits when wading ashore. Then we can have Marines that still attack on 2 during landings