AARHE: Phase 2: Neutrals

@The-Captain

Thank you for the advice!

Maybe there should be an “Axis and Allies following the rules of war” game.

@variance:

Transports no longer defend at 0; they revert to their original and correct defense of 1

So go back to the scenario that transports protected warships? Or are you going to keep the rule that transports are always taken last but still allow defence on a 1?

Interesting idea, assuming it is a yes to the latter above.

Here’s how I would do it:

Don’t think of the new power as just “Italy.” Instead, think of the new power as “all minor Axis powers.” The starting territories would be Italy, Southern Europe, Algeria, Libya, Rumania/Bulgaria, Finland, French Indo-China Thailand, and Argentina (!). You can actually leave the starting unit setup as is – that will give the new player 2 fighters, a battleship, and a transport to start with, while still leaving Germany and Japan with a bomber and five fighters each.

Open the Turkish Straits.

Put Italy first in the turn order, e.g., Italy - Russia - Germany - UK - Japan - USA. This is OK because Italy’s not really in position to mess up the Russian starting units too badly.

Leave Italy at 3 IPCs, and create a new 2 IPC territory out of neutral “Peru Argentina” that starts out empty, under Italian control, just as Brazil starts out empty and under American control. This will give Italy 14 IPCs at the start of the game – enough to buy a carrier, or a fighter, or a bomber, or a cruiser.

It’s OK that Italy has only three production slots, because Italy’s going to want to drop some expensive air/sea units. For example, if on turn one Italy builds 3 infantry and saves 5 IPCs, then on the next turn Italy might have as much as 22 IPCs to spend – which is really easy to do; you could buy a fighter and a bomber, or a transport, a destroyer, and a tank. Having only three production slots doesn’t really cripple the Italian player, and it wouldn’t be realistic anyway for Italy to crank out enormous armies of infantry; Italy’s population just wasn’t that large. If you really want to, you can probably build an Italian factory on turn 2 in Rumania.

@Larrie:

Wow, things can really get out of hand, can’t they? First of all, I stand corrected, but only to a point. What I mean by that is, Baron, you are correct, all planes would be defending, therefore they would be in the air to begin with. What I was still trying to address is the statement, Cannot carry plane when damaged. That is still incorrect. If say A British carrier has one British and one American fighter on it and is in the attacking force, and it is the British turn, then the American fighter of course would not participate in the attack. It would be relegated to sitting on deck, and if the carrier is subsequently damaged, the American fighter would still be on deck, not able to take off on the American turn. Again I am addressing Cannot carry plane, not anything else.

You were right about this statement, it was too absolute and didn’t accurately describe OOB rule.
That is why I answered by adding the point on friendly aircrafts trapped in a carrier.
But, if your carrier is damaged, it is not possible to trap your own aircrafts inside.
This last point wasn’t clear, especially when subs only are attacking @2 first strike carriers with no destroyer escorting. I returned to the rulebook to be sure about it.

@Baron:

@Larrie:

Baron, I have to disagree with you on the cannot carry plane when damaged statement. They cannot launch or receive planes after being damaged, but if for example a loaded carrier was surprise attacked by a sub and only damaged and not sunk, then I believe the plane(s) would be trapped on the carrier until such time as it was repaired or sunk.

Talking OOB rules, …

On offense, only friendly plane(s) carried on board is/are trapped if the carrier was damaged in combat.

I like the idea to create a new unit class that behaves in a unique way, and the AAgun does seem to be pretty good to denote it (since they’re rarely purchased). But of course, creating a new unit class does create some barriers to entry and diminishes the ease of adoption.

Basically the Bazooka concept as described (whatever you end up calling the unit, for me that’s not as important) will require an update to the battleboard, and the unit cost/abilities lists of the maps/book. Its one more thing that players have to learn, in addition to the new set up, so in that respect it will be harder to gather testers than if you just stick with the regular unit roster. Sure it’s a different balance then, but at least everyone has the info memorized already.

I think the easiest approach for a mod to adopt is to keep everything else the same, and just a offer reprint of the unit set up cards for each nation.

Those are typically separate materials anyway, and even the OOB cards have misprints (for the starting IPC value of UK and Germany) and printing out a few new cards is pretty easy. Placing starting units for a new set up takes about the same amount of time as it does to set the OOB game. So that’s pretty easy too.

I like a lot of the concepts here, especially the 1 ipc factory, which I think could be a major benefit to the play patterns on the board. But the Bazooka concept might overshadow them.

Perhaps test the Bazooka concept first in the OOB game to see how if it gathers interest? But I kind of like this set up, with the placements, even if they’re just normal AAguns. You can always use a bid, or further tweaks to rebalanced the situation (sans bazooka concept, if that’s needed.) I like pretty much all the other ideas. Though I’d still pull for a Pearl Factory hehe
:-D

Again man, nice concepts

@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.

@MacNaughton:

But for the sake of game mechanics, it is important that we say that Germany “liberates” Rome. Also, for the sake of game mechanics, we can only take historical accuracy so far. Which means that if Rome is liberated by Germany, then we pretend that all the Italian territories all over the board will be perfectly happy to come back under the rule of Italy no matter the actual feeling of those people in actual history.

Exactly. Thank you, sir.

@Imperious:

All those dice rolls thing would imbalance the game, only a fixed result can be balanced and must be.

Hmm… We are both talking about Axis and Allies, right?

I’m not too keen on changing the troop values for the various countries.  I think having their ipcs go to the controlling nation is enough.

You bring up a good point about the allies attacking neutrals, but these rules are really about bringing more options to both sides rather than taking them away.  I have no problem making Historical Sacrifices provided it results in improved  game play and fun.  I’m just looking for simple, perhaps a short paragraph, to give the rules for various Neutrals.

Back to Sweden.  I maintain the greatest fear the Swede’s had was Communism.  When Stalin attacked Finland they sent support to them.  They allowed transit rights to the Germans so they could fight the Russians.  I am sure they were entertaining thoughts about joining the allies in order to keep the Russians out of invading Scandinavia.  Even if these things are not true, I am leaning towards rules that follow the ‘evil communism’ spirit.

Perhaps giving Germany the option to activate Sweden when the time comes is best?  Germany can then look at the on board situation and decide if Sweden being activated is wise, or if it is just giving that territory to Russia.  I am thinking this would not be a round after round decision though, Germany gets 1 shot at Sweden.