Tweaked Russia NO for G1940.2: "Red spread"

@Kriegmeister:

My friends and I played the Anniversary Edition for the first time yesterday. We really like the new map and units, but we sort of agreed that the way destroyers negate the subs’ sneak attack has “nerfed” the subs somewhat. We also felt that Europe’s Soft Underbelly is a little too true, as the Allies quickly found this to be a misnomer.

As things stand, one DD can neutralise all the subs in that sea zone. We think that in such a scenario, the DD should be treated a bit like artillery supports infantry; that is, for the defender, one DD can engage one sub, while permitting one friendly unit in that sea zone to engage (in this case, whichever has the highest defensive die roll).

So say two German subs decide to attack in a sea zone containing one British destroyer, one CC, and one BB. The DD can defend against one sub, and permits anti-sub operations by the battleship (because it has the highest defensive roll. The second sub retains its normal sneak attack as per the usual rules (one roll at the outset of the first turn).

In the event of a CV with embarked fighters, we argued BOTH fighters can roll for each DD defending, and that should the CV be sunk by a sneak attack, the fighters in this instance are permitted to recover on any friendly territory or CV within range. Otherwise, if a DD is not present the normal rules apply (and the planes go down with the ship, having not been alerted to the presence of subs).

On the attack, one DD permits one other surface ship to attack one sub. In the case of aircraft, one DD can support TWO planes in any combination (2 fighters, 2 bombers, or one of each). I welcome your thoughts. We’re going to try this the next time we play.

Hi Kriegmeister, welcome to AAE!

Yes, DDs are the naval Super Unit! They are overly strong in the naval calculus- not only due to their “1 for all” sub-canceling craziness, but also because they destroy (ehhh??) every other naval unit (except attacking Subs) on an equal IPC basis. Very strange (from a game mechanics point of view) decisions were made regarding the naval cost structure, whether due to historical justification/railroading, personal disdain for certain units and strategies on the part of the designer, or just a lack of math.

Per the OOB rules, the one decision you always ask when buying a non-destroyer ship is whether the special ability you’re getting out of it (e.g. amphibious bombardment) is worth what you’re losing (naval supremacy) by not simply buying destroyers instead.

So yes, reducing DD’s sub-canceling ability to 1:1 or 1:2 is a common house rule to weaken the unit somewhat, although it does not address the other strength issues above.  It sounds like that’s essentially what your rule is doing: making DDs cancel subs at a 1(+1):2 ratio when you have another surface ship (per destroyer) in the combat, or a 1(+2):3 ratio when you have another two planes (per destroyer) in the combat.

I would suggest simplifying it to a 1:2/1:3 ratio, straight up. I’d also take away any extra boosts for planes (which already punch above their weight in naval combat).  Note that any variation of this rule makes Subs (already the most efficient attacking naval unit) even stronger in all configurations, which may be an undesirable outcome. The usefulness of all house rules depends on the proclivities of the players using them.

My preference for my (mostly solo) games is to leave the DD’s universal sub-canceling abilities alone (or fix it at 1:3) while re-balancing the cost structure to remove them from the ‘Outright Naval Supremacy’ throne, which I think should belong to BBs and 2-ftr CVs while leaving a budget-option niche for CAs. But that’s just me.

raises glass
“To the elusive ideal of balanced fleets and a balanced game!”

Good thoughts, keep the ideas coming! Welcome to the Forums!

Well I’m still not sure how simple it is to implement a group phase like the warchest concept I mentioned.

Might be advisable to keep regular war bonds in the back pocket. And the +5 for capturing an enemy VC as outlined in the master thread would be good to have as a toggle. Since at least we know both of those mechanics work in tripleA.

But yeah I think the warchest VC concept has promise, if it can work in 1942.2, I’m pretty sure it will work even better in Global.

I prefer to think along the lines of many fewer, large sea zones. Ships of both sides can co-exist in them, and must make search (or intercept) rolls to initiate combat. Land based fighters cannot attack ships.

The whole problem lies on Japan’s absurd overpowerness. No matter what house rules are present, Japan will always take Soviet far east and China. Allies have nothing to prevent it.

Why Japan’s role is always trying to rescue Germany via marching to Moscow? Why Japan always outproduce Germany and USA? It is neither fun, nor historical plus it totally deprives Pacific front and two ocean going approaches for USA.

Typically USA esablish a pipelines in North Africa while abandons Pacific, Britain in N.Russia, Germany turning into surviving mod waiting Japan to recue. I’m really sick of to see the same thing.

The solution is make Germany 2 times stronger than Japan considering 1942 borders, make Soviet far eastern and Chinese territories less valuable (Making two territory worth 1 with Nos), Hawaii factory with 2ipc value, then rebalancing.

@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.

So recently I played out a game using this system. After many rounds and one of the longest games of axis and allies I have ever endured, it was a stalemate. As Gargantua predicted, London fell. Though we had Britain with two capitals, there income was combined and allowed to be spent at either side of the board. Even after all unit builds went to London turn one, it fell turn two. So only London income was lost and the Brits fought on from India. Nevertheless Italy become a God economically and militarily. The Brits in the Med and Africa were sunk naval wise and overwhelmed on land by Italy. The German navy became large enough to contend with America, and later on in the game, Italy almost took Stalingrad and successfully took Calcutta for one turn and also controlled all of the middle east. Japan was effectively contained by America, Britain, China and ANZAC and suffered huge losses after very early wins. Japan doesnt stand much of a chance we decided. Russia got hit hard by German attacks and Itailian attacks on their flanks through the middle east. Russia also rolled terribly. But their navy was strong and the capital never fell. America was hard pressed and couldnt fight Germany effectively while also dealing with Japan. It was mostly string after string of failed landings in Africa and the British mainland while sending a token navy to assist the rest of the allies in the Pacific.

Overall, the system sped the game up tremendously and kept all players focused. I find it to be balanced decently. The axis seemed very strong early in the game and kept the allies at bay except in the Pacific. Britain’s economies should be combined probably, but with a better experienced British player this just might create hell for the axis. Great house rule and I will be playing again with my group this way soon.

For comparing out abilities, putting 600 subs vs 120 BB or 200 Cruisers vs the BB or whatever may help to show the statistical differences, but you’ll never have 600 subs or 40 BB in a real game.  Usually you will have them in a combined fleet of ships or you would prefer them to be.  They are often alone though.

I was thinking of the beginning setup of AAE.  In the Gibraltar Strait you have a Destroyer, which for all intents and purposes has the stats of a Cruiser in AA50.  To take that I have often see merely a fighter and a sub take it on, and the sub being sacrificed.  Or the Italian fleet comes over and lands on Gibraltar at the same time, having the BB absorb any possible hits.
  But at the outset of AAR, there is a BB in that strait and often a larger force is brought to bear, that because 2 hits are needed so the goal is to get them on the 1st round rather than give the BB 2 shots.

So there is a larger difference in the mental impact of a BB vs other ships.  There is a thread in the AA50 section about how a Cruiser/Destroyer combo is always more useful and versatile than a BB for the same cost. 
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13648.0
Not advocating for/against on that, just pointing out the discussion at this point.  But in that you are talking ship combos, not all BB vs anything else.  For BB you get some additional mental agony for the opponent while you get some additional financial agony.

Well, I’m a porcelain throne field marshal.
I outrank everyone…
see Stratego rules if you have questions.