[1942 2nd Ed.] Argo's Summer 1942 Map

@CWO:

@Erocco:

@Argothair:

Some early thoughts on your mix of units:

Many of your units are quite similar to each other mechanically, especially on land. E.g., a tank destroyer is C5 A4 D4 M2, whereas a light tank is C5 A5 D4 M2 – do you really need two different units whose statistics are within one point of each other? Another example is Mech. Inf. (C4 A2 D4 M2) vs. Armored Cars (C4 A3 D3 M2). With d12 dice, these small differences will only matter once every 12 rolls. Consider whether your players will want to buy extra minis, carefully squint at the setup, etc., so that they can enjoy the result of these small differences.

I though of this long and hard. I love to have a choice of many different types of units for every situation. I own most of the HBG sculpts so I figured why not.

Just a comment on a possible middle ground between two valid points: your valid point that having special extra units is fun and interesting, and Argothair’s point that having too many special units – some of them having only minor differences between them – complicates things excessively.  A possible way to split the difference is to have a rule saying that, out of the full range of available special extra units, each power is only allowed to buy X types per game (say, for example, 2 types).  This helps to keep things manageable, because each player only needs to remember the specifications for a very limited number of extra types, not for dozens of them.  It doesn’t restrict game-to-game variety because, from game to game, the various players won’t necessarily buy the same special units.

An additional concept to consider would be to have certain types of special units only be available to certain powers, rather than to everyone.  This could result in interesting situations in which the opposing forces can never be precisely matched in composition…and it would also have a historical basis, because in WWII not all powers fielded every type of weapon.

I should start posting some of the work completed to date because that’s exactly what I’ve done. Every Nation has 2 specific units with the exception of Italy which they have one (ideas for a second unit are welcome) and depending on the unit you can only build 1 or 2 per turn. So anything you suggesting CWO Marc has been implemented.

Thanks! I mostly agree with your comment about per-dice research efficiency; the only reason I didn’t include additional penalties for triple-stacking your scientists is for the sake of simplicity. If you want to play with a -3 penalty, or (even better) a -4 penalty that rounds up to a -3 penalty if you roll three 1’s, then go right ahead!

Giving each Axis nation 3 tokens and each Allied nation 2 tokens tends to give the Axis an early edge in research (they will manage their first couple of breakthroughs earlier than the Allies will), but then the Allies will start to catch up and then overtake the Axis later in the war, because the Axis scientists (on average) will be more “crowded” and will take more stacking penalties.

You could bump Radar to 14 pts. or even to 16 pts. if you really want to, but there are limited opportunities to make full use of the potential synergy. E.g., suppose Germany is using a “Dark Skies” approach to ward off Allied fleets with its enormous Nazi bomber squadrons. Britain might want both Radar and Anti-Aircraft Cruisers to help protect its fleet. Russia, on the other hand, only needs Radar – they’re not going to build any cruisers. Similarly, Russia doesn’t have much use for Jet Fighters, since if it’s suffering from a strategic bombing campaign, it won’t be able to afford much in the way of extra fighters. There’s also the concern that “Heavy Bombers” has always been an overpowered technology in every version of Axis & Allies that had tech. I tried to err in the opposite direction by making the anti-aircraft techs roughly as powerful as the aircraft-enhancement techs!

There is an “Improved Artillery” tech in some of the OOB versions of Axis & Allies, and I’ve never seen anyone buy it, except maybe Russia, who really does have to count every dollar and might not be able to afford enough artillery to fully power its infantry stacks. It is really challenging to fully exploit the advantage of 2:1 artillery support is that it’s really hard to maintain the desired ratio. E.g. if I have a stack of 10 infantry and 5 artillery, then after one round of combat, I probably have something like 2 infantry and 5 artillery, and the extra artillery support becomes moot. It stays moot on defense, too, when those artillery try to hold the ground they just captured. But if I have a stack of 20 infantry and 5 artillery instead, then my army is hugely inefficient – even with 2:1 artillery support, I’m only generating 40 pips of punch on 25 units, so I’m going to give you multiple rounds of combat in which to score hits and wear down my army.

You get the same problem in reverse if you want to only boost the artillery’s native attack power. With a stack of, e.g., 8 infantry and 3 artillery, the tech would only give you +3 pips of punch – it’s just not very exciting. You could try attacking with a stack of all artillery, e.g., 10 artillery for $40, but that just seems weird and un-thematic.

Anyway, let me know if you try out the rules, with or without some modifications! I’d be curious to see how they work in live play. I’m defending my rules so you have the benefit of my opinions, but they’re just opinions, and ultimately the house rules are there for everyone to enjoy however they like…if you think you’ll have more fun tweaking the costs or nerfing a couple of the techs, then go with what seems fun! :-)

TUV counting, making sure the allies start with a clear numbers, tuv, and income advantage to compensate for the drastic positional advantage. Axis quickly catch up in income and the ICs shift to the axis within the first 3 rounds.

More importantly the axis now have to make decisions instead of having one best move to do.

Even more importantly the allies have something to look forward to potentially within the first 3 rounds which typically saw a whole lot of nothing, which is a big reason people do not play this map.

Still favors the axis to win. I like to play the axis so I am a little biased, I just hate to see the game won before it even begun.

Typing from a smartphone is the best way to respond LOL! So sorry for the typos and grammar.

Anyways Hotspurs. I really encourage you and others to play around with the game.

With the newer titles you have blank factory tiles that would work well for your ideas as well as the tiles marked “3” and “10” from the Global games.

So heres my latest map for A&A 1914. Includes East Prussia and all correct borders, Has some Zones for Askarideployment in Africa.

I kept Albania, neutral Greece and Moscow as Russian Capitol.

1914Balance.png

@Cmdr:

@Gargantua:

Paratroopers talk a big game…

But for examle, if Patton hadn’t have broken through to Bastogne,  they would have been massacred :S

I still think it is a bit complicated.

Just have a rule that says you have a full round, from the time you are cut off, to establish a line of supply (unbroken, but you can make it as conveluted as you need to establish it) to a friendly industrial complex or all units in the territory are lost.  It must be a major industrial complex or convoy zone (free of enemy warships.)  That stops you from building a minor complex to supply your troops and stops the enemy from just taking a major complex and cutting off your entire continent since you can get to a convoy zone instead.

Maybe I think too simply?  It just seems the easier it is to understand, the better the chances of using it and spreading the idea to others.

I prefer the notion of keeping it simple.  My A&A “house rules” games have so many rules as it is…

I am gonna post a new version of mine using KISS. I think it is too complicated.

but i will do that in a new thread :-D