Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition) Phase one proposal (draft)

@theduke:

e) US Fast Carriers (change- specifics?)

Are we talking about light carriers or fast carriers or cheap carriers?

@theduke:

The Soviet Union  and Japan are not at war when the game begins. Soviet Union cannot attack Japan until Germany and Italy are defeated, while Japan cannot attack until Greater China,India and Austrailia are defeated.
********What about the idea of attacking whenever you have 3 times the IPC value of the defender in terms of ground troops? Russia should have to be on there guard even in the early part of the game.

Hm…are we using hard limits for non-agression now?

@Imperious:

Strategic Redeployment (SR)

This new idea, I feel like keeping on it on a small scale.

G) jet bombers?
I) A-bomb?
K) long range subs?

What? I last recall A-bomb being OFF the table.

********this is only phase 1, remember? The list for every tech we can think of is coming up in phase 2, right?
I though we are in phase two?

There are too many disputed issues so I also think we are still in phase 1.

Now I’m thinking what might be better to add instead of strategic redeployment are the national victory conditions (as long as we can make them simple enough). What I’m thinking is just having the “minor” national VCs for this section. Can we post the ideas for all the possible minor national VCs (like Germany takes control of Africa/Middle East etc…) and see if we can use them for this?

German XX1 Class U-boats (walter uboats)

Wasn’t the VIIC the most built sub in the war? If Germany is building a lot of these subs, including in early 1942, should it be the XXI?

Ok as far as a major improvement of submarine capabilities (prior to nuclear subs) the walter Uboat was by far the best sub traveling at almost the same speed as destroyers at 16 knots compared to 7-8 knots underwater. This U-boat is developed as early as 1943 would have destroyed england. It wasn’t introduced till Jan 1945.

It sounds like Walter U-Boats fit the description well for Super Subs. I think VIIC better fits what we need from the massive number of cheap U-Boats under the national units section.

I though we are in phase two?

This topic is ‘Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition) Phase one proposal (draft)’ so I thought all the info presented here was for the phase 1 proposal.

+++++it represents the ratio of what was sent in terms of value to germany. And it makes the allies consider going after the swedish income to deny Germany. My idea was to basically under phase two give the allies 15 IPC for lend lease aid instead of 10 ipc, because some of this aid has goto UK, while Italy gets 10 IPC to offset the income, now if Germany gets 5 IPC in aid the allies should get another 5 in aid to offset. Now germany can go after 15 IPC while the allies can go after 5 IP in aid.

You bring up a good point. Neutral Aid from these 3 European nations sounds like it would fit better under the Foreign Aid section, rather than the Non-aggression Treaty section I had them listed in before. I might have work things around again or reword things.

Now on the issue of Soviet winter… please don’t get discouraged… its a small thing to make up something that satisfies the problem of winter warfare.

Soviet Weather: In the second half of 1942  all land combat by the Axis players in the Russian theater is subject to a -1 attack modifier (never lower than one) during the combat phase.

OK is this better? we need something and you want only the germans to get the modifier… is this what you want? just modify my post to fit what you feel is best.

I don’t really want to introduce it anymore because it seems like we can come up with other things that will incorporate better into the game. You said it yourself, the game starts in April 1942; so why should we have Russian winter? It would be like having a rule for “destroyers for bases”. All that happened before the game starts so I think for the sake of realism we should not include it.

The 6 optional rule sections are a plan I had to introduce in phase 1. These will not replace anything in phase 2 and beyond. Latter phases will just expand the possibilities. I really want to stick to only 6 optional rule sections and 6 techs (techs being 1 of the optional rule sections) because it fits in well with a 6 sided die.

If you want to have a similar thing for phase 2 or 3, we could have something like 12 tech categories and a d12 die.

e) US Fast Carriers (change- specifics?)
Are we talking about light carriers or fast carriers or cheap carriers?

I want a name for the national unit advantage for the US where they pay 13 IPCs per carrier and they move 3. I guess that would be a class of fast carriers.

I hope there is historic basis for it.
Last I was upset about OOB’s “fast carriers” rule when they really meant “light carriers” which physically carried less planes, had weaker armor, and didn’t moved faster.

US needs some national unit. what should it be and what would be an advantage that balances with the other national unit advantages?

@Imperious:

++++++++It is not based on any historical idea. The rule has to reflect some idea that is realistic. The Soviet intention was to keep the treaty with Japan … untill the war was settled with Germany. Japan was in a similar position… they wouldnt touch this treaty w/o the US surrender or a major colapse of european hold on asia ( india, austrailia)

Yeah although I don’t prefer hard limits, soft limits like the IPC penalty to fight internal resistance mentioned earlier can be somewhat fantasy.

This new idea, I feel like keeping on it on a small scale.
+++++++ yes very small… like 1/3 if what i posted

Yeah particularly air transport it should be limited to 1 infantry only like you drafted.

at times people will be frustrated and feel its not worth the time or feel overwhelmed… the trick is to take things slowly so the proper cognigation can occur and a refined result can be discovered.

Yeah I do feel overhwelmed when I see a page of discussion between you two.
We are also discussing many issues in the same thread (as we finish off phase one).

***So I think lets not introduce new things but focus and settle on disputed idea. Then start phase 2 so we can discuss in structured threads again.

@Imperious:

Heres a proposed german list:…hers a list for uk…If you just have like one unit for each player, then its kinda boring. the new units can be some sort of NA.

A list :? Lets play with units in phase 2.

To finish off the US national unit I agree on both the cheap weak carrier and the mech infantry.

A list  Lets play with units in phase 2.

To finish off the US national unit I agree on both the cheap weak carrier and the mech infantry.

I agree that the list sounds like way too much for phase 1 (this is a phase 1 topic).

As for finishing off US unit, I don’t want to have any national unit be weaker in any way than normal units. Even if there are other advantages that still make it worth buying, it shouldn’t be weaker in any respect. I want to draw this line for the sake of simplicity and the sanity of the player’s who want that simplicity out of phase 1.

We can do either US unit, but let’s remember the purpose of these national units rule… To create an incentive to follow the historical purchasing strategy. Russia built more tanks than anyone so we gave them tanks. Same for Germany, with subs. UK didn’t build the most DDs, but they built more than their fair share and I can’t think of any unit they built a large number of so I guess we’ll stick with DDs. Japan didn’t buy a whole lot of anything, but they did have cheap kamikaze fighter planes, so we’ll go with that. US built in OMG number of CVs! That’s why I went with CV as the unit. If we don’t have the CV as the US unit, then the US might not purchase a large number of carriers. Please just throw around more ideas for CVs and maybe something will stick.

As for infantry, I do like the idea of having mech infantry and marines as special abilities. If we include inf as the US unit, then I think we should have both advantages and call the advantage something like “specialized forces” or something. US infantry moving 2 isn’t worth much, except in China, but that’s unrealistic. US infantry shouldn’t move 2 in Asia. How to restrict that? Also, marines can attack in first round of amphibious assault.

Let’s develop ideas for both inf and Cvs as the unit and see which is liked more.

So some ideas for a US unit as CV…

(Cruiser hull) Light carriers: Cheaper at 12 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at normal speed. Probably attack on 1 defend on 2 as usual.

(Merchant hull, weak engines) Esort carriers: Cheaper at 10 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at 1  :lol: Probably attack on 0 defend on 1 like a transport.

World Aircraft Carrier List http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/

(Cruiser hull) Light carriers: Cheaper at 12 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at normal speed. Probably attack on 1 defend on 2 as usual.

(Merchant hull, weak engines) Esort carriers: Cheaper at 10 IPC. Carry 1 less fighter than normal. Take only 1 hit. Move at 1  Probably attack on 0 defend on 1 like a transport.

Like I said before, I don’t think I’ll ever vote for a national unit advantage that has any disadvantage against the ‘normal unit’. US national unit CVs only carrying 1 fighter is a disadvantage against the normal CV.

What if instead of US unit being light CVs (using cruiser hulls) they are of the essex class?

Essex class fleet aircraft carriers
Displacement: 34,881 tons full load
Dimensions: 820 x 93 x 28.5 feet/250 x 28.3 x 8.7 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 872 x 147.5 x 28.5 feet/265.8 x 45 x 8.7 meters (“Long Hull” types: 888 x 147.5 x 28.5 feet/270.6 x 45 x 8.7 meters)
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 8 565 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 150,000 shp, 33 kts
Crew: 2,631
Armor: 1.5 inch hangar deck, 2.5-4 inch belt
Armament: 4 dual, 4 single 5/38 DP, 18 quad 40 mm AA, 61 single 20 mm AA ; single 20 mm AA replaced late WWII/postwar by 35 dual 20 mm AA
Aircraft: 100

Concept/Program: Conceived as a Yorktown modified to include better underwater protection. As war drew near and treaties became less of an issue, the design was allowed to grow into a large, powerful, and versatile ship. The first units were initially scheduled for completion in 1944, but production was rushed due to war. These ships formed the mainstay of US WWII fast carrier forces, and the US postwar carrier fleet. All ships served in the Pacific from completion to the end of hostilities.

Essex class was the mainstay for US fast carriers. But they were also rushed into prodcution. Perhaps 1 way to simulate being rushed into production is to make them cheaper by 3 IPCs? Is there a better way to simluate being rushed into production? This would make them cost 13 IPCs and move 3 in non-combat. Essex CVs should still hold 2 fighter units max.

Use dukes info on the units. but usa gets cheap bombers not cheap carriers.

What is the historical basis for this cheap bomber idea? Did you see that US built like 141 CVs vs. the other nations’ approx. 10 each? Should we ignore this huge difference when trying to simulate mass production? The difference with bomber aircraft is not that great compared to difference for CVs.

How about we put in writing our line of reasoning for choosing a national unit so we are not all over the place. Once we agree on the method for choosing the unit, actually choosing the unit will just be looking up facts (easy).
Here is my proposed logic for how we should pick the unit. Your opinions on this are needed.

1. Only 1 unit per nation (for perceived balance).
2. A different type of unit for each nation (for perceived differences among nations as well as for enjoyment for players).
3. If a nation made 1 type of unit disproportionately more than either their economy would allow or more than other nations produced them, then that should be its national unit.
4. If a nation made more than 1 type of unit disproportionately more, then choose the unit based on how much more and also to not contradict number 2 above.
5. If a nation didn’t produce 1 type of unit disproportionately more (significantly more), then choose the unit based on a unique flare or fame (like kamikaze planes).

Here is an idea that is very different from the topic at hand, but what if we have all air units that don’t move in combat phase in a given turn can move up to their max in non-combat, land temporarily, then move up to their max again? Would that be realistic? I think a fighter should be able to move 4, refuel, and move 4 again in the time of whatever a turn represents. This would be realistic and more fun. Opinions?

No, this is all in the non-combat move phase only.

Combat with air units is the same.

If an air unit doesn’t move in combat move phase then in non-combat it can move it’s max (like 4 for fighter) land for literally 1 second (in game time) and more it’s max again.

It basically moves double in non-combat than in combat (but it has to land in middle of total movement so it doesn’t get unrealistic range if the enemy owns half the world)

This idea is same as Mideast Oil in OOB rules except doesn’t just apply to the mideast.