G40 Capital Warship Damage and Super Heavy Battleship

The scale of which A&A G40 is designed to represent must be taken into account.

We assume that the original A&A Classic rules concerning AAA are more or less represented in the A&A G40 version.

We have devolped an Expansion rule for AAA: Flak Tower (see pdf file below).

5. G40 Flak Tower.pdf

You can find more inspiration in the G40 Expansion rulebook: Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion.

Captain

@The-Captain

Very cool and intimidating!

What I wouldn’t give to had that army…

Re: Global 1942 Scenario by Larry Harris

We’ve played this version four times now, and it definitely is tilted towards the Allies. The US is simply too powerful, and Japan has no chance with the US getting 65-70+ income every turn. While it’s still our favorite, there are some challenges. Our thoughts:

I agree with the assessment that the USSR can knock out 1-2 territories right off the bat. This is similar to the traditional A&A, but Germany doesn’t have the forces to respond in any forceful way to retake anything. USSR is starting with 21+ infantry across the 3-territory front, and Germany can’t get its forces there fast enough. The USSR creates strongholds in Kaliningrad and Ukraine and churns out 10-12 infantry or 6 tanks that immediately come into play. The possible solution for this is for Germany to put a minor IC closer to the front for balance.

Germany has no chance to get transports out of the North Sea due to Britain’s fighter advantage. With France’s help, you would need to get 4+ destroyers/cruisers to protect the transports if you’re trying to go to Iceland and then to Canada/US. The key is to have sub packs hunting any transports that cross, and quick. Once the US takes Gibraltar (which it should do in R1), it becomes a fighter landing factory where they can spawn across the Atlantic and then pound Italy.

The US is just too powerful. The winning path we’ve seen is for the US to make 5-6 fighters per turn and fly them to the Hawaiian islands, then eventually take Wake and Midway. From there, it’s only a matter of time. Japan simply can’t put enough forces to fight through the fighters to get Hawaii, Midway and the islands to the south. The 15 bonus just for having the US each turn is too much. If Germany/Italy can put pressure on the US (which we have seen and done), it can help, but it’s really hard. Italy needs to get income fast, which means going hard and fast after Egypt and the consolidated forces there.

Our Allied player did a very interesting thing by putting a factory in Egypt along with an air base, which made it almost impregnable. Getting Africa quickly is perhaps the least understood key to the war - it allows Italy to prevent ships from coming through the canal and lets them pressure the US. Italy HAS to hold TransJordan to prevent UK ships from crossing the canal. I can’t emphasize enough how important a role plays in helping take pressure off of the UK, which can…

Build up an infantry fortress in India which is impossible to take - UNLESS you build a minor IC on R1 in Malaya. Why Malaya (which is much harder to defend)? Because, under the rules, it can be upgraded to a MAJOR IC - producing 10 units per turn - so India can be overwhelmed. The challenge is that Malaya can be hit (and taken) with the British naval forces attached to India. However, if Japan can do it, they can then turn its attention to…

ANZAC - becomes an income suck very quickly for Japan by grabbing the East Indies. Getting Japan to take out India is probably the most important thing the Axis can do. It frees Japan to focus on island defense and ANZAC. If ANZAC starts getting fighters, they become a transport-hunting force which simply can’t be countered. Otherwise, ANAC spawns a transport and 1-2 infantry per turn that can grab IPC-rich islands. The way I’ve countered this is to flood the Pacific with subs everywhere, which will pick off any unattended transport immediately.

Germany - Has to focus on numbers to overwhelm Russia while hoping that the UK doesn’t undertake strategic bombing raids, which Germany should do anyway to minimize the UK’s strength. The USSR has been able to assemble 25-30 tanks in the last three games, and only an error by the Allied player which allowed me to grab Russia for a turn helped even the balance. I have found that blasting the UK’s IC into dust slows things down a lot.

All in all, a very solid game, but it needs some tweaks so the Axis have a chance.

@tincanofthesea

I don’t have time to test your house rule, but it sure looks interesting. I might use it sometime.

To follow up on this, here’s the interpretation I’d put on the concept of fast versus slow groupings of capital ships (battleships and battlecruisers) with other ships.  The concept did exist in both WWI and WWII, but it took different forms.

In WWI (and the decade leading up to it), naval technology such as turbine engines and face-hardened armour, plus ship design philosophy in general, had progressed to the point where the dreadnought-type capital ship (uniform-caliber main battery in more than two twin turrets, good protection, and fairly high speed) had become feasible, but it had not progressed to the point where all three features (firepower, protection and speed) could be optimized at the same time.  That would have to wait for WWII, when the true “fast battleship” type emerged.  (The same thing happened with tanks, but with a one-war difference: in WWII, tanks could be optimized for two of three features, or have medium performance in all three areas, but it was only during the Cold War that technology allowed a tank to have excellent performance in all three areas.)

During WWI, technological limitations (plus the considerable influence of Admiral John Fisher, who was a visionary in both the good and the bad sense of the concept) led to the emergence of two varieties of dreadnought-type capital ships: the battleship and the battlecruiser.  Basically, dreadnought battleships were reasonably fast (but not as fast as cruisers), and had both heavyweight firepower and heavyweight armour that allowed them to slug it out with anything afloat; the rule of thumb was that a balanced battleship design had “proportional” armour capable of dealing with an enemy ship carrying the same caliber of main guns as it itself carried.  Battlecruisers were similar to dreadnought battleships (the British, in fact, tended to create a parallel class of battlecruiser for its respective battleship classes), but they carried fewer main gun turrets and had less armour so that they could achieve higher speed than a battleship; they were roughly as fast as a normal cruiser, considerably better-armed, and somewhat (but not always by much) better protected.  Battlecruisers, according to British doctrine, were operated as part of what could be called “fast heavy scouting divisions,” in advance of the main formation of the more powerful but slower battleships.  For a classic example of this, have a look at the two main British formations at the Battle of Jutland: Jellicoe’s slower battleship force, and Beatty’s faster battlecruiser force.

In WWII, the picture becomes more complicated.  There were relatively few battlecruisers at that time, and they were a strange mixture of British and Japanese WWI hold-overs, weird German designs reflecting (or intended to cheat) treaty limitations, clear-headed French and Italian modern evolutions of the battlecruiser concept, plus the well-made but rather pointless American Alaska class (which the Americans denied were battlecruisers).  To me, these odd ships muddy the picture more than anything else.  In my opinion, the real fast-versus-slow capital ship distinction in WWII wasn’t between battlships and battlecruisers, it was between the modern 1930s- and 1940s-era “fast battleships” on the one hand and the surviving WWI-era battleships (some of hwich had been modernized between the wars) on the other hand.  The classic example of that distinction can be found at Leyte Gulf, where the Americans assigned their old slow battleships (plus some escort carriers) to support the amphibious invasion directly (I think they were officially under McArthur’s command), and assigned their fast battleships and their fleet carriers (under Halsey) to fight the main Japanese fleet if it showed up.  Halsey’s carrier pilots did take a substantial crack at the IJN during the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea (they sank the Musashi, notably), but Halsey later took the bait of a Japanese decoy operation and charged off to the north with his fast battleships and his fleet carriers to engage Japan’s remaining fleet carriers (which actually had few or no planes left aboard, and were simply meant to draw him away from Leyte Gulf).  As a result, the Japanese surface-combat forces (in two groups, operating well away from the decoy force) had a clear shot at Leyte – and the American forces which ended up stopping them were, respectively, the US Navy’s older battleships at the Battle of Surigao Strait and a force of escort carriers and light surface-combat vessels at the Battle off Samar.  In the latter engagement, the hopelessly outclassed (if you go by the raw ship types and numbers) Americans engaged the Japanese battle fleet so aggressively that the Japanese commander, Admiral Kurita, ended up retreating because, in his mind, the tiny American forces couldn’t possibly be attacking him so energetically unless they were expecting massive US Navy reinforcements to arrive at any moment.  In fact, Admiral Sprague, the US commander on the spot, knew perfectly well that Halsey was nowhere near him; he dealt with a hopeless situation by going on the offensive because that was he was a leader in the tradition of WWI’s Ferdinand Foch (who at the Battle of the Marne reputedly signaled to his superiors: “My left flank is driven in; my centre is giving way; the situation is excellent: I attack!”)

Hey Folks,

has anyone of you ever tried HBG “Battle Shapes (3D)” rules (fortifications, rockets, etc.) in your 1940-Global games? (www. historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Shapes-3D-printed_c_425.html)
If ‘yes’, what are you’re experiences with them? Are they a great imrpovement? Or to expensive, unbalanced or simply unrealistic?

It’s cool, I have come up against resistance to the city bonuses idea virtually every time I try to persuade people of its merits, despite its evident superiority to me hehe.  :-D

I made my case against National Objectives pretty clear when Larry and others originally proposed them for AA50. I still believe now, as I did then, that NOs are way more complicated and numerous than they need to be, and that there are better, easier, and more consistent ways to introduce money into the game. Moreover, I feel quite strongly that National Objectives (if they are included in a game) should be strictly optional, they shouldn’t be a requirement for game balance.

I also still believe, as I did when Revised came out, that absent some real in-game economic draw, VCs are pretty ineffective at influencing the way players approach the endgame.

Many players (the ones I play with anyway) simply do not find VC victory conditions satisfying, perhaps in much the same way that they did not find the Economic victory conditions in Classic satisfying. Outside of tournaments, I expect that many players will continue to ignore VCs, in favor of capital capture, because capital capture has an in game economic influence which is decisive during the endgame. You can state the official VC Victory Conditions as flatly as you like, by the book 100% (with “Axis need X” and “Allies need Y” and all the rest), and you will still see players ignoring VCs, or subordinating them to Capitals, because a VC win is like winning on a technicality. Often both the Victor and the Vanquished both go home feeling like the VC game lacks the sort of climax they desire. If the VC conditions are such that a capital must be taken regardless (to satisfy the total requirements) then VCs just seem redundant, or secondary at best.

What most people want out of the VC system is instead, a way for Axis to “Win” that does not require Moscow. A narrow win game, absent the capital capture dynamic, but this almost never pans out, because there are not enough VCs on the map…

And also (perhaps more importantly) because there is no strong mechanism in place to encourage vigilant tracking of “VCs controlled” in a given round by the players who are actually playing.

That is essentially what it comes down to right there, its a player tracking problem, not a systemic problem or a problem with the concept of the VC itself. The lack of diligent tracking comes from the fact that (in real game_play_ terms) VCs don’t do anything inside the game, but are used only to determine when its supposed to end.

I believe that by attaching bonuses directly to VCs controlled, you can start to get a game where VC tracking is imperative, and all players will pay closer attention to them.  This mitigates the feeling of “losing or winning” on a technicality, because one or the other player got so caught up in everything else that needs to be tracked that they neglected to track the VCs! In TripleA for example almost everyone I know “unchecks” the victory by VCs in the game options, because of how annoying it is to see a multi-round game just get torpedoed right before achieving climax, after several hours invested, on a VC technical win.

My hope would be that, once you get players used to the notion that VCs have value (real value in terms of the games underlying framework of IPCs) then you could potentially use them to replace the capital capture dynamic.
But again, I don’t expect everyone to just hop on board with this idea because I say it’s great. Some players seem to rather enjoy having 28 complex rules for income bonuses, which are unavoidable, and which complicate the game’s economy in various ways. I’m just not really one of them haha.  :wink:

I will play Halifax using the City Objective bonuses and report back with my findings on overall balance by side.

I think G40, like most A&A games lately doesn’t give players enough cash in hand to overcome game breaking exploits or a single bad roll of the dice. For a game that takes nearly an hour to set up, there is very little margin for error when you’re actually playing, almost no room for recovery, because the unit replacement cost is so high relative to the economy. I believe this a problem which can be solved by adding more cash into equation. And that this actually accelerates game resolution rather than drawing it out, under the general principle that players are willing to risk more, when they have more.

NOs try to achieve the same, but they do so in way which is very rules intensive. In Global there are so many NOs, and they have such a huge influence on the gameplay… Such an overwhelmingly dramatic influence on the basic strategies at work, that the map itself, (and all the ipc values and information written on it) ceases to communicate the situation in a particularly meaningful way to players. You cannot survey it at a glance, but instead you have to be aware of all the NOs and all the stuff behind the scenes. OOB these are not presented as optional, and in gameplay terms they are basically mandatory. The game doesn’t balance well at all without them.

So that is the way I see it. To me a VC bonus scheme handles two separate issues with one simple mechanic. It makes VCs relevant, gets the money into play, and restores the map itself (over the NO page in the manual) as the primary way players evaluate their standing and situation vis a vis their opponent.

@toblerone77:

@knp7765:

I think destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In fact, I think all surface warships should have that ability.
The only thing that worries me is if destroyers can bombard @ 2 plus their ASW abilities and cheap price, that will start a new wave of people saying “Cruisers aren’t worth buying”.

Well FWIW I don’t mind adding some firepower especially if everyone can do it. I’m working with using the bunkers from HBG to have major and minor bunker complexes that soak hits even on islands. It really just depends on how far you want to diverge from OOB rules and what other units are going to come in to play.

A simple rule could be that all surface warships no matter their type boost +1 on a 1:1 ratio with land units for one round, and tweak it to your liking from there.Â

Interesting extrapolation.
It could be used by cruiser and BB in addition to their basic bombardment.
We can even consider more boosting power toward BB.
Cool. :-)