For me, it’s getting more historical accurate play of nations in WWII that actually fought. I find it very strange that Vichy France and Co-Belligerent Italy isn’t in the game, obviously it is hard to do this.
Axis & Allies 1943 "Deep War"
-
I’m opening this thread to encourage discussion and ideas for a 1943 Axis & Allies scenario.
-
I would say for victory conditions for the axis they need to gain certain objectives. Trying to gain Allied capitals in this time is really hard for them then years like 1942, 1941, and 1940.
-
Here is a history perspective from Argothair…
You have some flexibility, Young Grasshopper, but not much. Let’s say you try a January 1, 1943 start date.
At that point, the Americans had already gained naval dominance in the Pacific at the Battle of Midway back in the summer of 1942, and the Americans were massively outproducing the Japanese all through the summer and fall of 1942, so the Imperial Japanese Navy is going to be outnumbered roughly 2:1 vs. the US Pacific Fleet if you want any kind of historical realism. What the Japanese still had going for them was control of a middle and inner layer of defensive islands – you could give Japan some infantry and some land-based fighters on Iwo Jima, the Mariana Islands, Palau, and New Guinea, and you could leave the American transports back in Hawaii or even San Francisco, to show the difficulty in transporting troops over the entire Pacific Ocean.
In Africa, the Allies have seized Morocco, Algeria, and Libya. You can leave Tunisia in German hands, but it wasn’t held very strongly – it’s not really a useful beachhead; the Germans couldn’t afford to reinforce it, much less counterattack, without dangerously draining forces needed to occupy France or occupy the Balkans. Even if you leave the Germans in Tunisia, with American, British, and French forces all converging on Tunis, it’s only a matter of time until Germany gets pushed out of Africa.
On the eastern front, the Germans were crushed at the battle of Stalingrad, but they still held Rostov and the Caucuses in force, which makes for an interesting opportunity for the Germans to push forward. In real life, the Germans sensibly retreated from the Caucuses, but they could have doubled down with their last remaining reserves on the eastern front to try for Round 2 in Stalingrad, or to try to break into Persia and Iraq. The German front line at the time would have been something like Baltics - Belarus - Bryansk - Rostov - Caucuses. It’s a good front line, but the Russians are mustering a very large counterattack that will almost certainly break that line. The Germans could plausibly take Leningrad, Stalingrad, and maybe even Persia, but even if all of those battles went well, they would not have any realistic opportunities for breaking through to Moscow for at least another 4-6 turns, by which point the Allies are almost certainly sitting in Paris and Rome and threatening Warsaw.
The Japanese could plausibly have crushed the Chinese resistance in 1943 if they had poured additional tanks into the region instead of reinforcing their barrier island chains; it’s unclear if that would have had any serious effect on the defense of Moscow. As accurately reflected on the 1940 Pacific map, Moscow is 7 turns away from the Japanese industrial complexes on the eastern coast of china – even if China were totally undefended, it’s hard for Japan to move significant forces all the way through China and into Russia.
So, long story short, I think you could make an interesting game out of a January 1, 1943 starting setup, but you would need different victory conditions to give the Axis a chance at winning – maybe an economic victory condition, like the Axis win if they control 100 IPCs (I have no idea of the proper number), or something like that. The Axis could have made some major economic gains against the allies if they had a good year in 19432, but they just aren’t in a position to realistically assault more than a couple of victory cities in January 1, 1943, let alone in a position to conquer any Allied capitals.
-
…and another from CWO Marc.
Good assessment of the general war situation that existed in 1943, Argothair. For an A&A game to be set in 1943, it would have to take one of two approaches: either realistically model the situation that existed in 1943 (meaning that the Axis would be in a worse starting position than in 1941 or 1942), or it would have to be some kind of alternate-history scenario (which could achieve game balance at the price of historical accuracy).
That being said, 1943 does fall within the middle phase of WWII, so the date might still allow for a decent slugging match. The period from 1939 to about mid-1942 was the period when the Axis was in the driver’s seat. During 1944 and 1945, the Allies were clearly in the driver’s seat. The period between those two time brackets was the “deep war” phase during which, from the Allied point of view, the Axis advance had been checked and partially rolled back but victory was by no means yet certain. In Europe, Germany still had some strategic options open to it (as Kursk in 1943 and the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 were to show), but those options were much more limited than in 1942. In the Pacific, Japan was in a somewhat worse position (it made no land conquests after its failed attempt at Guadalcanal), but it did have the resources for two major rolls of the dice at sea: the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944 and the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October of the same year.
Assuming one were trying to model historical reality accurately for a 1943 scenario, it would help to start as early in 1943 as possible because the problems for the Axis got worse and worse as the year progressed. Just off the top of my head, I’d say that if I had to design a 1943 scenario, I’d pick February (specifically February 10) as my starting date: 8 days after the fall of Stalingrad and 1 day after Guadalcanal was declared secured by the Americans. Those were two pivotal moments, so I’d choose mid-February 1943 in much the same way as Larry chose to start his Europe 1940 scenario right after the evacuation of Dunkirk. I’m not sure what I’d do in terms of victory conditions or force allocations, but conceptually the date seems like a workable candidate.
-
@wittmann:
@Frederick:
Hey wittmann, good job so far and it looks like Libya and Tobruk are empty are they up for grabs?
They are UK controlled, sorry for the omission. (Remember I was working from a AAA map.)
The Axis have no TTs and Italy’s fleet should not be able to defeat te joint Allied one. That was the plan, anyway!
It probably makes for a boring game for the Axis, unless, like me, you are a weird masochist.Maybe one way to save the challenge is to give to all Axis powers a one time opening investment bonus. Something like 40 to 30 IPCs in addition to the basic income from TTs.
Maybe this could be viewed as a last ditch effort to increase wartime production and also the results of a more intensively converted economy. -
Are you trying to take away the pleasure I get from being whipped, Baron?
Makes sense, if it means people will play a 1943 scenario, like mine. Thank you for the suggestion.I have only play tested it once, so am open to the possibility of some sort of German reserve. Looking again, I fear the whole Eastern Front line will be captured and retained, without any semblance of a counter on its turn. ( I did that intentionally when I made it, but could be persuaded to add 3 or 4 Mechanised units 2 territories back.) I am thinking about it again, especially as others have shown an interest in a 43 set up.
-
Hey Guys,
there are some very interesting arguments for an early-1943 start of the scenario. If you want something more conventional, I suggest beginning in summer 1943. Here you’ve got the operations ‘Huskey’ & ‘Zitadelle’ in Europe; while in the pacific there are the ongoing fighting in the Solomon Islands & on New Guinea and the beginning of the British offensive in Burma.
In regard of the victory conditions I suggest a victory level – major, minor or draw – depending on the date of the allied capture of the last axis capital. Maybe linked with some kind of ‘sudden death’ in case of the fall of Moscow, London or Washington.
In general I recommend a ‘historical’ scenario. This means very strong allied forces and no extra IPC’s for the axis to spend prior to the game.Greetings,
Lars -
Which axis and allies game are we referring to or are we making another type of axis and allies? I don’t own Global but since to Young Grasshopper’s videos I basically know the game and map and here’s an idea that some powers should start with some tech because if you start with germans in Tunisia they should have the paratroopers tech. Well historically the germans flew their troops over there by plane or another is like when the allies was bombing Germany and then America or UK should have the heavy bombers tech. So some starting tech is my idea for 1943.
-
I think we are talking about a scenario for 1940-Global. Or at least I have this version in mind.
But in general this is a good question for nearly all the topics of the “house rule†section. -
Just to copy into this discussion a post I’ve added to the other thread where YG’s 1943 idea got started: the phrase “deep war” that I mentioned is a quote from Ilya Ehrenburg’s book The War, 1941-1945: “We speak of deep night, deep autumn; when I think back to the year 1943, I feel like saying: ‘deep war’.” Richard Overy quoted it at the beginning of one of the chapters in his book Why The Allies Won – the chapter titled “Deep War: Stalingrad and Kursk.”
Edit: typo correction.
-
Back to the allied bombing on Germany maybe Germany should start with some damage ICs or it’s a bit to much. Any thoughts on that?
-
You could. Oztea did that for his 41 set up.
I decided not to. I think Germany has enough problems.By the way, Elrood has decided to play me at my 43 game. Just done half of T1.
Russia goes first, Germany 5th.
Can look at the thread if you wish. Is in Play Boardgames: -
Perhaps expand the Axis tech tree, to offset the Allied production edge. Its not inconceivable that strategic weapons (were they actually used by Germany) might have turned the situation. Strategic weapons in this case would be a gamey euphemism. In the Axis case Tabun nerve agent, or defoliants and various agro-warfare projects that were researched and stockpiled by Germany at the time. Sure it’s ugly, but so were incendiary bombs, and the Allies used plenty of those before Atomics entered into the equation. Perhaps you could create some kind of “endgame” accelerant, with strategic weapons in mind. Alternatively (or maybe as a compliment) Rockets and aviation advances could be built in as standard for G.
Otherwise, we’re just kind of pretending that the war resolved by strictly conventional means, which isn’t exactly totally historically accurate to begin with anyway.
In more basic terms, you could represent the territorial position of both sides to reflect 1943, but tweak the actual unit strength such that the Axis were better off in numbers than they actually were in realiry.
Like others suggested, you could have more Japanese infantry “already dug in” on the islands. Perhaps double Japan’s Kamakazi tokens or things of that sort.
Japan will also be tricky to model though, as they were already past the point of aggressive expansion. Perhaps instead of J1 expansion, it’s more a US1 series of attacks, where Japan has odds on D? So they have a chance to turn it around.
Italy would also be a challenge. I think to keep it interesting, you’d have to put some real thought into how to handle the Med.
One possibility might be to set up a scripted battle for Italy, sort of like France in 1940. Where the Allies have an easy shot on it, but then give G a bunch of units to race down and take over. Or you could even explore having the Italians switch sides, such that Germany can conquer them (as an Allied player), rather than liberating their territory as an Axis player.
-
To mimic Japan’s economic and supply problems, I have placed an Allied Sub of 3 of the DEI (not Celebes) and off Malaya. Japan only has one DD that can reach. Its small Cruiser led fleet off New Britain can’t get away from the Americans, so will be sunk on US1.
Italy cannot be captured on R1, but ought to fall on 2 or 3. The Germans have 3 Mech units in Italy, but should move then to bolster the Eastern Front. The Med is something, to which I have much thought. I am very interested in that theatre, being Italian. I want to get it right.
The TUV difference I wanted was 600. It remains to see if I got that figure right.
I want a quick game and although I have not stipulated the Axis victory conditions, they can be agreed afterwards. As the Axis player, I would be happy to have survived a certain number of rounds and put up a good defence. (The 2 players could decide if this had happened.) -
I rather like that idea Baron mentioned, about a sizable bonus to Germany’s starting income.
In 1943 the entire German economy was subordinated to armaments production under Speer. The boost was pretty dramatic, when compared to output for the prior 3 years of the war. Just churning out tanks, and u-boats, and fighters.
Also, I believe it was around this same time that the Germans started relocating their factories underground and farther to the east. So perhaps you could include an additional Minor factory in Poland? This would give G a bit more reach vs the Soviets, and a stronger defensive position during the endgame for their VC at Warsaw.
For technology, you could perhaps give Axis 1 free roll for a tech breakthrough each round? Or maybe Increased Factory production for Germany right from the outset? I don’t know how many players really bother with Tech in normal G40 games, but seems like it should play some sort of expanded role in game focusing on 1943 and later.
-
Also, I believe it was around this same time that the Germans started relocating their factories underground and farther to the east.
I don’t know much about this topic, but the only underground German factory complex I’m aware of is the Mittelwerk facility where slave workers assembled V2 rockets. It was dug into a mountain somewhere in Germany, as I recall.
I recently re-watched the low-budget movie “Tonight We Raid Calais” (made around 1943, I think) which – even though it wasn’t trying to be funny – featured a hilariously improbable plot device related to German industrial production. The Germans are manufacturing 88mm shells in a valley located close to a fictitious occupied French town. Both the Germans and the Allies consider these shells to be of vital strategic importance: early in the film, a British officer helpfully explains that the Germans need the 88s to defeat the new American tanks that have appeared in North Africa (an apparent reference to the Sherman, whose thin armour was hardly as formidable as this line of dialogue implies). Anyway, to make sure that the Allies won’t have an easy time bombing this vital factory, the Germans come up with the clever scheme of building FIVE complete factories in the valley: one real factory and four fake ones. The rationale is presumably that if the Allies launch a bombing raid against one of the factories (which is naturally understood to mean dropping 100% of their bombs on the selected target, and having 100% of those bombs hit the right building and miss all the other ones), they’ll only have a 20% chance of hitting the real factory. Clever, n’est-ce pas? To further ensure the security of this brilliant deception plan, the Germans – who are using conscripted French workers to produce the shells – take the precaution of driving each truckload of workers through a long dark underground tunnel at the beginning and end of every shift, so that none of the Frenchmen (who, the Germans fear, might be passing information to the Resistance) know which building they’re working in. Everyone in the film – the Germans, the French and the British – take this whole concept so seriously that its implausibility is easy to overlook.
-
Haha sounds like an Axis and Allies strategy I’ve encountered before, like " OK I’ll build 4, that way if 3 get blown up, at least I’ll still have one left!"
:-DThe movie has a great cover!
Oh yeah that’s the one I was thinking of, at Nordhausen, where the rocket craziness went down! Probably where I’m getting the images in my mind. I’d guess it had more to do with reinforcing or camoflauging structures for the most part, rather than actually burying them, though I know there were plans in the East to actually go underground towards the end of the war. How successful they were at it I can’t recall. Just looked up something on Project Reise, in Poland or Silesia or somewhere thereabouts, but looks like they never actually pulled it off before the Soviets arrived on the doorstep!
There was definitely a move to relocate production to get away from Allied bombs. It’s hard to get inside the head of crazy Nazi’s, but the slave labor component probably played a role in decisions to relocate, as the Allies started gaining ground in the West. I think after Stalingrad is when that really started to kick in, as they made up for their labor shortages with slaves, like genuine bastards. I think the late war production in the East was more oriented towards chemical weapons, Buna Rubber, aviation science, “super weapons” and the like, all the horrific stuff they were working on at those death camps, more than like regular 88s and tanks and such, but I guess it could still count towards the totals, if you wanted to give the Germans a 1943 IPC boost up, compared to the 1940 board.
For the Rocket stuff at least, I know they bounced out of the testing grounds at Peenemunde in the Baltic, round about 1943, after Hydra bombed em up proper, which is when the decision was made to move operations into the forest or bury it in mines in the Harz instead.
This would be a gamey rationale to be sure, but one that might also be workable, if you wanted to give the German’s another minor factory in Poland or a tech boost to work with as a way of balancing the forces by sides.
-
Maybe free tech should go to Germany because Japan didn’t do much tech and japanese inf on islands should defend on 3 or less.
There should be a rule that if Rome is captured by the allies then Italy is out of the war since historically at that point of the war they wanted to get out of it and if Germany captures original Italian territory they control it instead of liberating it even Rome.
-
If the Axis are in such a tough spot in 1943, I would consider removing Italy altogether and replace any Italian units that would have been in the setup with German units.
-
YG: that idea has made me want to change  Italy. Thanks.
If Rome is captured, any other Italian territory inmediately becomes German, if it has at least one German Ground Conbat unit in it. Of course, Germany can’t collect the income until it’s turn. The Italian Ground  units in these territories become German too. All Air units are removed, except one, which becomes German.
If there are no German units in an Italian territory, these units all disappear (are removed).
Any fleet is always removed.
That seems historical.
Suggested Topics
