AARHE: Phase 3: land Combat

As I said before, just make landing craft give some kind of boost for landing infantry, like they attack at 2 on the first round, something like that.

Also, I agree landing craft are pretty much already in the game due to transports even existing however if you want to add landing craft, you can then “imply” that the transport without them are just docking at some port.

I found a post which say that SBR AAA kill ratio was 10% max:

What Larry says have flaws, and contradict to to base mechanic.

It should be like this:

1. Attacking fighter escorts roll dice, each 1 is hit, and defender move casualties to casualty zone.

2. Defending AA-gun roll dice, each 1 is hit, and then defending fighters roll dice, 2 or less is hit. Attacker choose his casualties.

3. Surviving bombers roll SBR dice against factories.

In real world, the attacking airfleet would first face the intercepting fighters, and then the escort fighters would do dog-fight. Later, the bombers would face AA-fire at the target. This AA-fire killed historically less than 10 % of the aircrafts. Using Larrys rule where AA-guns target bombers, you could be lucky and roll two 1’s and kill both attacking bombers, and get an unhistoric result of thousands bombers killed and no harm to the factories. Since its an abstract game, let the attacker pick a fighter as casualty to represent a % loss, and still have bombers survive to SBR.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1706&start=8
He is talking about an older version of SBR (AA50 Anniversary).

So, A&A takes place in an era where the locomotive is a mature and widely-implemented technology, even in remote regions like Africa. Why can infantry only move one space? For combat movement, this makes complete sense. The troops are moving in a hostile situation in which every mile can be a struggle. But, why couldn’t the USSR move troops from Vladivostok to Leningrad in a single turn? Turns represent a lot of time, plenty of time to shift all the resources that go along with an infantry unit. Trains are fast, when its simply a matter of moving men and equipment through friendly land.

Now, A&A is a game and is not always realistic. But, being able to move troops more fluidly within friendly territory could open up the game’s strategies somewhat. I think it makes an interesting thought experiment. I’m using AA40G to think this through - but it could be applied to other versions as well. Its particularly important for the AA40 series though because of the larger map size that can mean some land units move entirely through friendly land can sometimes take 5-6 turns to get where they are going - far too long. 4 Turns to shift infantry from Normandy to Poland. 6 turns from Korea to Burma. Russia’s Eastern Front to the west… etc. This unnecessarily ties game resources up.

Suggested rule:
All powers in possession of their capital may move land or units that have not moved in combat at all and are on a land friendly space (not on a transport) to any other friendly land space, as long as a path can be traced that only involves land spaces that started the turn under your control. Air units may then make an additional non-combat move as per regular rules.

Can you guys help me think this one through?

Problems:
The game is not designed around this, which means assured problems with the setup.  Is there any potential leapfrogging abuse? Say, my ally takes over a space, and then during my turn this paves the way for me to take some abusive path.
It also means the extra price of Mech and Armor is not as worth it. They are much more flexible on the front, since they can attack two spaces away, but it does boost the effectiveness of Infantry and Artillery which decreases Armor and Mech by comparison.

How it would affect powers:
Germany: I actually think this would add a lot to the game, since Germany’s troop deployment is more liquid. You still have to keep troops on the Atlantic coast to resist allied landings, but Germany can also react to these landings effectively. This also means that getting air units to Norway is easier.

The USSR has 18 infantry on its eastern front. If they are more easily able to send things between east and west, those 18 become a bit much. This seems solvable though - reduce infantry that start there and then add some in case of Japanese attack or some such. I think the change will make their front with Germany more interesting.

Japan is able to funnel troops into SE Asia much more easily. It presents an interesting dynamic where Japan could keep lots of transports in the sea of Japan to funnel troops into Manchuria, then from Manchuria to their destination the next turn. I like this dynamic, but this rule change seems like it could break an already troubled India.  Perhaps a reduction in starting units could offset the advantage that increased mobility gives them - they benefit from it more than any other Pacific power.

UK is now able to move troops from South Africa to Egypt very easily. This makes stopping Italy very hard. Other than that, so much of the UK is overseas that they benefit very little.

Anzac can move troops to Western Australia with ease. I think this is a good thing - it means if Japan invades they don’t invade lightly.

Italy is able to help Germany out on the eastern front more easily. They also are able to shuffle troops plunging into Africa back to defend Morocco.

United States: This makes it easier to shuffle troops between the east and west coasts. A plane built in Eastern US can make it to Hawaii. Which actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t view the decreased need to commit builds to one front or another as a major problem for the game - naval builds are still committed and other builds are committed the second they leave the continental US.

France doesn’t have their capital and can’t take advantage of this. This stops them from stockpiling their African troops in Egypt.

China doesn’t have a capital, can’t ever use this.

Anything I am missing? Thoughts?

Lately I play them as 8 Ipc defenseless units that can transport 2 inf. there range is 5. So typically they have a round trip range of a fighter unless they take off from airbase and then the round trip is that of a bomber.

I doubt the US would buy the truck if all it did was transport units.  The US is constantly doing amphibious assaults from Africa to Italy, then into Europe, and all over in the pacific.  It has no need for a land transport.  Italy and Anzac would have no need for it either.  It’s only use would be on the eastern front and in getting Indians or South Africans to Egypt.  Also, it is unrealistic to use trucks in Asia due to the terrain. Jungles slow things down, and the logistic nightmares they create are one of the reasons Japan’s ground war eventually stalled and floundered in South East Asia.  Better to make it motorized infantry.  Maybe a 1/2/2 unit costing 4 IPC that can pair with artillery or tank for +1 attack?  Mech infantry would then change to the values DannyBoy2016 suggested.

Hi tekky and Imperious Leader,

thanks very much for the quick clarifications! I’ll post if other things pop up during gameplay  :-)

Regards,
sponge

If they saw the latest files i feel we would have won easily. They are that good.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8670.0

when you feel happy with the infantry placement rules just tell me and I’ll paste them into the main document

I hope you’ll repost in table format though  :wink: