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

How about if we have the last section of the eventual phase 1 writeup be called ‘Optional Rules’ and include the following ideas:

National Units:
Russian T-34s: Russia only pays 3 IPCs for the first armor unit purchased every turn
German Type VIIs: Germany only pays 6 IPCs for the first sub unit purchased every turn
RAF Spitfires: UK only pays 8 IPCs for the first fighter unit purchased every turn
Japanese Hakusan Maru class transports: Japan only pays 6 IPCs for the first transport unit purchased every turn
American B-17s: US only pays 13 IPCs for the first bomber unit purchased every turn

Axis Advantage: Italian Forces
During the Collect Income Phase of the German player’s turn, the IPCs for Southern Europe is double-counted (it’s worth a total of 12 IPCs instead of just 6 IPCs), however, all 12 IPCs must be used to place units in Southern Europe.

Allied Advantage: Lend-Lease
At the end of every US player’s turn, the US player collects 10 extra IPCs and determines how to allocate those IPCs between the UK and Russian players. None of the 10 IPCs may be used by the US player himself. Specific rules to come later as to how these 10 IPCs will be vulnerable to attack by the Axis players. However, the rules will be made so that most of the IPCs will be lost every turn that German subs are present in the Atlantic and consequently allow the Axis and Allied Advantages to balance each other out in approx. value.

I’m thinking maybe the cheap Japanese transports should cost 5 instead of 6 (now -3 from the original cost) and the cheap German subs should cost 5 (also -3 from the original cost). The reasoning is for balance purposes. 3 Allied nations x -2 from each unit = a total of 6 IPCs saved per turn. 2 Axis nations x -3 from each unit = a total of 6 IPCs saved as well.

One problem with the above change is that now there’s a big jump in cost of those Axis units (3 IPCs difference). This can actually have the opposite of the intended effect in that Germany is less likely to build more than 1 sub per turn because they save 3 IPCs by holding off on the 2nd sub purchase until the next turn. Same goes for more than 1 Japanese transport purchase per turn. How about the change is instead that the 1st 2 German subs and Japanese transports per turn costs 6 IPCs each? Neither Axis nation is likely to buy more than 2 of these units in a turn so there is a significantly reduced counter effect. Besides, Japan won’t buy that many transports anyway so their added advantage of 2 cheap units per turn will usually go wasted. I think the net effect is approx balanced between the Allies units and the Axis units.

What do you think about either rule change? Is there a better solution or should we keep it like we had it before with only the 1st unit costing 2 less?

@theduke:

One problem with the above change is that now there’s a big jump in cost of those Axis units (3 IPCs difference). This can actually have the opposite of the intended effect in that Germany is less likely to build more than 1 sub per turn because they save 3 IPCs by holding off on the 2nd sub purchase until the next turn.

Yeah. Like I said its going to be weird if we take shortcuts like this and not model mass production.
I vote for package cost. Like “2 U-Boats 14” for and “3 T34s for 13”.

By the way there is historic basis for cheap Japanese transports right?
Otherwise lets not add rules in just for “completeness” among the powers.

Yeah. Like I said its going to be weird if we take shortcuts like this and not model mass production.
I vote for package cost. Like “2 U-Boats 14” for and “3 T34s for 13”.

The package cost solves that problem, but players won’t buy the packages if they intail too much of an investment. For example, Russia buys most, if not all, infantry beacuse those units are the best defense per dollar. If we say that Russia has to spend about half their money per turn on armor to only save 2 IPCs, it’s not going to be worth it. They’ll lose too much on defense. The packages need to be made up of no more than 2 units to be effective.

By the way there is historic basis for cheap Japanese transports right?
Otherwise lets not add rules in just for “completeness” among the powers.

I disagree. I think there needs to be the perception of a level playing field amongst all players while still being true to history. 1 national unit each does this. The same thinking went in the box rules for NAs. Do you think it’s just a huge coincidence that every nation has exactly 6 NAs? The makers of Axis and Allies Revised also know of the importatance of this.

Here are a couple links you might find useful followed by some of the more pertainent blurbs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Aircraft

Production by nation
Vehicles and ground weapons

Tanks and self-propelled guns
Soviet T-34Soviet Union = 105,251 (92,595)
United States = 88,410 (71,067)
Germany = 46,857 (37,794)
United Kingdom = 27,896
Canada = 5,678
Japan = 2,515
Italy = 2,473
Hungary = 500
Note: Number in parenthesis equals the number of tanks and self-propelled guns equipped with main weapons of 75 mm or larger. Smaller producing nations do not have this differentiation.

Artillery
Artillery includes antiaircraft and antitank weapons, above 37mm
Soviet Union = 516,648
United States = 257,390
Germany = 159,147
United Kingdom = 124,877
Japan = 13,350
Canada = 10,552
Italy = 7,200
Other Commonwealth = 5,215
Hungary = 447

Aircraft
Fighter aircraft
United States = 99,950
Soviet Union = 63,087
Germany = 55,727
United Kingdom = 49,422
Japan = 30,447
Italy = 4,510

Bomber aircraft
United States = 97,810
United Kingdom = 34,689
Soviet Union = 21,116
Germany = 18,235
Japan = 15,117
Italy = 2,063

Naval ships

Aircraft carriers
United States = 141
Japan = 16
United Kingdom = 14
Germany = 2

Destroyers
United States = 349
United Kingdom = 240
Japan = 63
Soviet Union = 25
Germany = 17
Italy = 6

Submarines
Germany = 1,337
United States = 422
Japan = 167
United Kingdom = 167
Soviet Union = 52
Italy = 28

No mention of amphious assualt vessels so I don’t know about ‘transport’ production. I know that the Japanese had some of the most famous ‘transports’ (or rather infamous) in the war called Hell Ships, but those were to transport POWs (whatever… soldiers are soldiers, right?). I just mention it FYI. For the record, I don’t think we should include the name or idea of ‘Hell Ships’ in the game for the same reason we shouldn’t include concentration camps… we want to conentrate on the military aspect of the game while not drudging up the horrors of WWII.

Here’s some more info:

Naval losses
Country            Carriers Battleships Cruisers Destroyers Submarines         
Germany              0          7             10         50            751             
Italy                    0          1             11         84             84 
Japan                 19         8             37        134           130
Soviet Union         0         1              4           27            90 
United Kingdom    8          5             30         110           77 
United States      11         2             10           71           53

As for infantry:
Russia had about 34 million serve in the military
Germany had about 17 mill serve
UK had about 5 mill serve (not including Canada, Australia, etc… but those numbers aren’t any bigger)
Japan had about 8 mill serve
US had about 16 mill serve

Here’s some of the important stuff from that above info:

Russia had a ton of tanks and artillery.

US had a ton of just about everything, but especially a lot of fighters and bombers and aircraft carriers.

UK had a disproportionally large number of destroyers.

OMG did Germany have subs!

Japan didn’t stand out in any noted category.

Conclusions: Since I wanted the national unit idea to promote historical purchases/builds, and help out all nations approx. evenly, and improve the play of the game I chose the units as follows: 
Russia=armor
Germany=subs
UK=fighters
Japan=transports
US=bombers

According to the info above, we could have:
Russia=armor or rtl
Germany=subs
UK=destroyers
Japan=fighters (justify fighters because kamikazes were cheaper than other fighters)
US=bombers or CVs

US would make less use of cheap CVs than cheap bombers. US would buy 3 CVs max for the game, but could buy like 5-6 bombers max for the game. Something to consider.

Anyone have any other info about Japan having a lot of transports/ converting a large portion of merchant transports to military transports or anything?

Opinions on the following?

1st Russian armor per turn costs 3 (-2)
1st and 2nd German subs per turn costs 6 each (-2 each)
1st UK DD per turn costs 10 (-2)
1st and 2nd Japanese fighter per turn costs 8 each (-2 each)
1st US CV per turn costs 14 (-2) or 1st US bomber costs 13 (-2)

That might even out all the units among both sides, right? Should the US unit be a bomber or CV?

1 more idea:

Once per turn Russia can pay 8 for 2 armor.

On every turn, Germany pays 6 for its 1st sub and 7 for its 2nd sub.

Every UK DD costs only 10 each.

Just before any battle (either on attack or defense), the Japanese player may declare any number of his fighters in a SZ battle as kamikazes. For every fighter declared as a kamikaze, the Japanese player automatically collects 4 IPCs before the battle takes place and adds it to the rest of his IPCs. These designated kamikaze fighters do not have to save any moves for the non-combat move phase when attacking, but as with normal fighters they must still save 1 move for the actual combat (this means that they have a range of 3 spaces without LRA). They are also automatically removed from the board after the battle if they weren’t already taken as a casualty during the battle.

Every US CV costs 14 and moves 3.

Note about kamikazes: You heard right, kamikaze units are not taken as a casualty immediately when they acquire a hit and they do not choose their target. This may seem strange and counterintuitive but must be done IMO. If they were to choose their target then this would leave carriers unrealistically too defenseless and make this advantage too powerful. Unfair complications develop when the attacker chooses his opponents casualties. Since the Allied player is still choosing his own casualties, it would be unfair to have the kamikazes taken away once they are assigned a hit on a cheap transport. Besides, a kamikaze unit consists of many kamikaze planes and thus can take out more than 1 naval unit, which represents fewer ships then a fighter unit represents planes. IMO, the rules above are the best compromise between simplicity, realism and effectiveness.

I think all these advantages are about equal in value amongst either side. Opinions?

I like your ideas! These are indeed more historically accurate, after reading all the info you posted. Thx! The Japanese fighter option sounds nice and really creative. But as much as I like it, I think these will be to complicated for many players. In the way that they will just forget about them in the heat of battle. In my opinion nation specific costs for a single unit should be in the purchasing stage. Here is what I think, taking your ideas as base.

Russia: 2 Armor for 8 once per round
Germany: pays 6 for each SUB ( They produced 501 subs more then all allied combined in the war!)
UK: pays 10 for each DD
Japan: pays 6 for each naval fighter (if decided these units will be part of the game, normal price 8 like IMPL described)
US: pays 13 for each bomber or 2 bombers for 26 once per round… Don’t know what will be better for the game. I like bombers more then CV’s just like you told in one of your previous posts.

Italy:  :-o Yes, they should also have a nation specific price for one type unit. Even if they are added in a later phase, and that they produced far less then the other powers. ( note they only really produced till early 1943, but sill…) They did came in 3rd in produced battleships, so we could give them BB for 17 (if new regular price is 20) but Italy won’t be in the situation that much, that they could purchase a BB, even at 17. So I think they should have Artillery advantage ( In the battle in Africa, these had been their best units)
Italy: 2 Artillery for 6 once per round

Thanks for the positive feedback. The hardest part about comming up with rules, esp. for kamikazes is getting them to be not too powerful or weak. I think the above rules eliminate either exploitable possibility.

But as much as I like it, I think these will be to complicated for many players. In the way that they will just forget about them in the heat of battle.

Since kamikazes are declared immediately before the combat phase, you can’t really ask for a shorter interval of time that the Japanese player has to remember the number of kamikazes. Paper and pencil can fix this.

Just before any battle (either on attack or defense), the Japanese player may declare any number of his fighters in a SZ battle as kamikazes. For every fighter declared as a kamikaze, the Japanese player automatically collects 4 IPCs before the battle takes place and adds it to the rest of his IPCs. These designated kamikaze fighters do not have to save any moves for the non-combat move phase when attacking, but as with normal fighters they must still save 1 move for the actual combat (this means that they have a range of 3 spaces without LRA). They are also automatically removed from the board after the battle if they weren’t already taken as a casualty during the battle.

Do you really think this is too complicated? All it is is basically collect 4 for every kamikaze, and the unit must be taken away one way or another after the battle.

Germany: pays 6 for each SUB ( They produced 501 subs more then all allied combined in the war!)

I agree from a historical purchase perspective that Germany should only pay 6 for every sub, but we also have to look at it from a game balance perspective. If Germany buys 3 subs in a turn, they are saving 6 iPCs, or 1 full sub! No other nation could realistically save that much (DD’s and CVs cost too much/ aren’t worth it to buy 3 in a turn). There isn’t a problem with Germany buying 2 cheap subs in a turn but 3 is a big savings. I don’t know. I’d like a discussion to figure this one out. Opinions?

Japan: pays 6 for each naval fighter (if decided these units will be part of the game, normal price 8 like IMPL described)

A naval fighter? Does this mean we are having more than 1 type of fighter unit per nation? This can be real good when we add more units in a latter phase, but we’re trying to avoid new units for phase 1.

US: pays 13 for each bomber or 2 bombers for 26 once per round… Don’t know what will be better for the game. I like bombers more then CV’s just like you told in one of your previous posts.

I like the idea of an incentive for US to buy a lot of bombers, but I went with CVs in the end cause US bought an OMG number of carriers (see above) and historically SBRs weren’t that effective in reducing enemy productivity. Don’t get me wrong, it was a tough choice to choose CVs. I would welcome a debate to settle this because I’m not really convinced either way right now. Opinions?

I suppose we could make the German advantage stronger by saying that all subs cost 6 and to make up for it we could make the US national advantage slightly better to compinsate… All US CVs cost 13 IPCs each and move 3.

Breakdown of worth for each national unit:

Russia will build 2 armor maybe every 3 out of 4 turns for the whole game. That’s 23/4=1.5 IPCs saved per turn
UK will build 1 every other turn, but maybe some turns they’ll buy 2 DDs so let’s say they avg. 1 DD purchase 3 out of every 4 turns also. That’s again 23/4=1.5 IPCs saved per turn.
US will buy maybe 3 CVs max the entire game but probably 2, avg.ed over about 10 turns comes to about 0.5 to 1 IPC saved per turn. Add in the advantage of moving 3 per turn which might be worth about 1 IPC and this is worth about 1.5-2 per turn as well.
That means the total savings for the Allies are 1.5*3=4.5 to 5 IPCs per turn.

Germany will buy 1-2 subs per turn but occasionally no subs. I’m thinking they might avg 1.5 subs per turn which would be a savings of 1.52=3 IPCs saved per turn
Japan saves 4 IPCs for every kamikaze. Half the turns they might not use any, but some times Japan might use a couple in 1 turn. I think the avg. will be about 1 every other turn. That’s 41/2=2.
That means the avg. total savings is 3+2=5 IPCs per turn

Notice that I think the total savings per side per turn are both about 5 IPCs.

Naval fighter?  In the topic units, this one was proposed as a new unit, therefore I suggested this option for Japan.  BTW when using your option, will that mean that the kamikaze is a regular option for Japan? And not a NA? (optional) Otherwise, Japan has fewer opportunities to make use of the advantage the all the other players.

@theduke:

I suppose we could make the German advantage stronger by saying that all subs cost 6 and to make up for it we could make the Russian and US national advantages better to compinsate. I don’t think we should make the UK advantage any better.

I like this  :wink:

Whenever Russia buys more than 1 armor unit in a turn, then all the armor units cost 4 IPCs each. (slightly better because now Russia gets more of a discount when they purchase more than 2)

Pro’s; They receive more discount on large totals, which resembles massproduction
Cons; The first turns, Russian doesn’t have the money to buy allot of armor. But then again, this is also historical accurate. In 1942 they didn’t have to force to push the German Back to Berlin anyway.

All US CVs cost 13 IPCs each and move 3.

Fine! But I still like bombers better… But for gaming I think I agree that the CV option is better balanced.

New units will come in at a latter phase. This topic is just about phase 1, at least that was my intention. A new fighter unit for Japan in a latter phase would probably be a good idea.

These ‘national units’ are in place of NAs for phase 1. Think of them as 1 NA per nation instead of the 6. New NAs will be added in a latter phase, probably phase 2. I don’t think we should come up with a huge list of NAs for phase 1. It’s hard to get them to be equivalent in value (Joint Strike is super good, while the out of box rules for kamikazes are worthless IMO). And if they are not the same value it ends up destroying any play balance we might manage to create.

Players using phase 1 rules can use these national unit rules to enhance realism without effecting game balance if they choose to (hence the analysis of equating the value amongst the 2 sides). In addition to these national unit advantages, there is 1 Axis and 1 Allied advantage (both of these are equal value too- see the 2nd post in this topic for those rules). Players can choose to use any combination of no optional rules, any/all national unit rules, and/or either/both of the Axis/Allied advantages. Players can keep the game balance the same by using all national units instead of just a few or they can create a handicap by using only some of the unit advantages. Same is true about the Axis/Allied advantages. That was my intention to increase replayability instead of using those bad out of box NAs. :-D

Micoom,

I decided to do away with the change of all Russian armor units costing 4 because I think some players would end up not buying any infantry, or at least buying way too many tanks! I don’t want Russia to buy all tanks so IMO we should change it back to a limit of 2 armor per turn.

@theduke:

If we say that Russia has to spend about half their money per turn on armor to only save 2 IPCs, it’s not going to be worth it. They’ll lose too much on defense. The packages need to be made up of no more than 2 units to be effective.

Yeah thats a compromise.
Another “strange situation”. As we try to model mass production unrealistic things appear. Looking at the production numbers you posted, I am wondering if Russia is incorrectly modelled as 24 IPCs in OOB. Then again they didn’t really make a naval.

I think there needs to be the perception of a level playing field amongst all players while still being true to history.

If you said level of playing field I would say it doesn’t depending on equal number of NAs and stuff.
As for “perception” of level playing field are we taking “nation specific unit costs” off the table  :wink:

@theduke:

Japan=fighters (justify fighters because kamikazes were cheaper than other fighters)

I buy this one more than transports. Kamikazes are not used often enough in OOB, sugguesting incorrect modelling. Actually its probably because of “oil” but thats also on the table already.

@theduke:

A naval fighter? Does this mean we are having more than 1 type of fighter unit per nation? This can be real good when we add more units in a latter phase, but we’re trying to avoid new units for phase 1.

Just to add. I think the fighters’ bombs and torpedos are refitted easy enough to not include naval fighter.

@theduke:

so IMO we should change it back to a limit of 2 armor per turn.

Yes there should be a limit to all the bonuses. Don’t want any strange situations.

I’ve made some changes. Opinions?

Once per turn, Russia may buy 2 armor units for 8 IPCs.

Germany only pays 6 IPCs for each sub.

UK only pays 10 IPCs for each destroyer.

Just before any battle (either on attack or defense), the Japanese player may declare any number of his fighters in SZ battles as kamikazes. For every fighter declared as a kamikaze, the Japanese player automatically collects 4 IPCs before the battle takes place and adds it to the rest of his IPCs. These designated kamikaze fighters do not have to save any moves for the non-combat move phase or for the actual combat when attacking, but they only have half the number of moves as a regular Japanese fighter (this means that their range is equal to their number of moves- 2 normally and 3 with LRA). They are also automatically removed from the board after the battle if they weren’t already taken as a casualty during the battle.

US only pays 13 IPCs for each CV and every CV can move 3 per turn.

My proposed simple tech system for phase 1 (not to be confused with the tech system for phase 2):

1. Radar= All subs and enemy aircraft are automatically detected/targeted.

2. Rockets= You may purchase rockets at a cost of 2 IPCs each. Any number of rockets may be fired from any number of your territories, provided that every territory a rocket is fired from is contiguously connected to your capital. Once a rocket is fired from a territory, it has a range to 2 to reach an enemy IC. The amount of damage done to the IC is equal to the larger of 2 dice rolls. Always roll for each rocket individually (i.e always roll 2 dice at a time). You may rocket attack any number of enemy ICs, but the max damage done to any IC is equal to the territory’s IPC value.

3. Super Subs= All your subs attack/ defend and interdict enemy commerce at a roll of 3 or less.

4. Long-range aircraft= same

5. Jet fighters= AA gun units (which also represent interceptors) successfully hit enemy air units (still have to be targeted first though) on a roll of 2 or less, instead of just 1. Also, your fighters are only targeted on a roll of 1 (instead of 1 or 2) when flying over enemy AA gun units. I’m thinking of adding something for regular combat too, but I don’t want it to be too powerful. Opinions?

6. Heavy Bombers= bombers can only be targeted on a roll of a 1 (instead of the usual 1 or 2). They roll 2 dice and take the larger roll during bombing.

Remember, that AA gun rules have been changed. The AA gun unit represents not only flak, but interceptor planes, coastal fortifications, and coast artillery.
Against enemy aircraft: Each AA gun unit only rolls 1 die whenever any number of enemy aircraft flies over the same territory, however, up to 3 AA guns may fire per territory. The 1 die successfully targets an air unit on a roll of 2 or less. If successful, then the player rolls again and successfully hits an air unit on a roll of a 1.
Against enemy amphibious assaults: Each AA gun (up to a max of 3) in a territory being attacked by amphibious assault may roll 1 die for every unloading enemy transport. If any roll is a 2 or less, then the transport has been targeted. A transport may only be targeted by no more than 1 AA gun. If targeted, roll 1 die to determine if transport and all it’s cargo is destroyed (hit on a 1). Repeat for each enemy transport individually.

Here is a breakdown of AA gun rules with any combo of jet fighters and/or heavy bombers and/or radar.

Assume 1 AA gun, 1 bomber doing SBR:

No techs:
AA gun rolls to target on a 1 or 2.
If successful, roll to hit on a 1.
=1/18 chance of being shot down

Defender has jets:
AA gun rolls to target on a 1 or 2.
If successful, roll to hit on a 1 or 2. (due to jets)
=1/9 chance of being shot down

Attacker has heavy bombers:
AA gun rolls to target on a 1. (due to h. bombers)
If successful, roll to hit on a 1.
=1/36 chance of being shot down

Defender has radar:
AA gun automatically successfully targets. (due to radar)
AA gun rolls to hit on a 1.
=1/6 chance of being shot down

Defender has jets, attacker has heavy bombers:
AA gun rolls to target on a 1. (due to h. bombers)
If successful, roll to hit on a 1 or 2. (due to jets)
=1/18 chance of being shot down (back to normal odds with no tech; techs cancel)

Defender has jets and radar:
AA gun automatically successfully targets. (due to radar)
AA gun rolls to hit on a 1 or 2. (due to jets)
=1/3 chance of being shot down

Defender has radar, attacker has h. bombers:
AA gun automatically successfully targets. (due to radar; h. bomber bonus taken away)
AA gun rolls to hit on a 1.
=1/6 chance of being shot down

Is radar too powerful against the enemy’s heavy bombers? IMO it needs some modifications.