Combined board (axis and allies advanced)

Oztea also has a 1942 setup

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/20575/oztea-s-1942-global-setup

@thrasher1 Maybe it is time for me to thank some people. The people who came before me… All the guys (and maybe girls) at game magazines who published Axis and Allies (and Fortress America and Shogun related stuff). I never got one of these magazines myself however.
But for now: a big shout-out to these pre-internet guys! If anyone from you is here on this forum: please send me a message if you want.

This is an update on a project I began some time ago, Axis & Allies: World at War.

The goal is to create a single, custom game map, ruleset, and playset for use in private games. In short, creating an Axis & Allies variant similar to Global War, but without the intent to mass produce or sell the product commercially. This means that I will engage a professional mapmaker to create a high-quality play mat and play aids (e.g., charts, roundels, cards, etc.).

In terms of mechanics, this will be a card-driven game like Amateurs to Arms and Mr. Madison’s War bolted onto the Axis & Allies core rules. Basically, players will draw from decks of cards that set global conditions, activate neutral nations, and let them activate units in given territories. Rather than being able to move all units every turn, players will spend Operations Points to move specific armies. Additional Operations Points can be obtained through card play, from possession of strategic resources, and by building and placing supply columns. The latter are units that move along with armies, allowing the player to activate that stack every turn for free. They may, however, be captured by the enemy.

The game will feature both territories and point-to-point movement. Possession of a given number of points within a given territory translates to ownership, which yields a production value in IPCs. The game pieces will be a mixture of plastic pieces and traditional counters.

We will use an alternate history to bring all corners of the map into play. The map is inspired by both Harry Turtledove’s Great War series and an alternate history saga known as The Feast of Eagles, which imagined a world in which Europe remained largely divided after the Wars of Religion. The major conflict in North America is between the United States and the Confederate States. In South America, Argentina squares off in a naval race with Portugal, which retains its Brazilian colony. In Europe, a Franco-Russian alliance is opposed by the British and the Austrians. Minor powers include Castille (British-allied), the Two Sicilies (French-allied), Poland (allied with Sweden), and a restored Byzantine Empire. At the onset of the twentieth century, the French also dammed the Mediterranean, flooding the Lake Chad Basin. A similar project was undertaken in the Congo. Along with the Great Lakes, both African “world lakes” are accessible by a new canal infrastructure that admits oceangoing vessels. Japan squares off in the Far East against an ascendant Russia, a China of dubious strength, and the United Netherlands, not to mention the British.

At this point, I have a notional set of units. Again, feedback would be excellent, especially by folks that are good at optimizing builds. Which proposed units are unlikely every to be built?
Axis and Allies Units.pdf

each team puts down a set amount of money. lets say $100 each. thats $200 for the game. the winning team gets the $200. Lets say the axis won. Germany, japan, and italy(if playing global1940)  count out the total number of allied territories captured add the ipc’s they are worth and divide 200 by that number. say germany captured 20, italy 10, and japan 15. so 200/45= 4.44. germany gets 20x4.4= $88.88  italy gets 10x4.44=$44.44 and japan will get 15x4.44=$66.6.    if each player put in $33 or some sort of equivilant to thier starting ipc’s id say they did pretty well. OR they could just split the winnings 3 ways each player gets $66.6.

Plus you could use the money during the game if you wanted.

This is my first shot at an expanded naval system that I’m working on.

Note: Since different dice types are needed, I’m using the following notation for a shorthand: the type of dice (d6, d12, d20) etc. is immediately preceded by an “at” sign, a @ and the number you need to roll for a hit comes first.  Thus a ranking of a “3” on a d6 would be written as a 3@6, which is really the same as a “10” on a d20 (a 10@20) or a 6 on a d12 (a 6@12)

A. What you need:

1. To implement it, you would probably need a couple of things.  First, after carefully comparing all the options, I decided to base it on a d20, primarily, so you’ll need a 20-sider or two.  (They’re not hard to find, btw, in case you’re not familiar with them.)

2. Secondly, you’ll need a much wider array of ships, particularly the large ships, battleships, carriers, and possibly cruisers.  I have some few Skytrex & Navwar 1/3000 metals and Panzersciffe 1/2400 plastics.  After comparing them, I’m probably going to go with the latter, though note that you’ll need a pretty big board for them.  For the 1/3000, you could probably get away with the oob AA40 combined board or the AA50 board, but for 1/2400 you’ll probably need something the size of the TWG board or the larger version of the new GW1939 board (which you can get from HBG)

B. Key Rules:

1. Gunnery: Battleships and Cruisers each have 2 attacks, while Destroyers have only1.

a. Destroyer/ Secondary Armaments: 1 attack represents the secondary armament, which is roughly the same attack rank as that of a destroyer, which makes sense as guns that were the primary armament on a destroyer were often the same ones as those used as the secondary armament on a battleship or cruiser.  Thus battleship/ cruiser secondaries attack and defend (both) at a 7@20.  (To save time, however, you could also roll them with a 6-sider as a 2@6 or on a 12-sider as a 4@12, which allows you to roll both primary and secondary simultaneously, since a BB primary armament would always be rolled on a 20-sider.)  Destroyers have only 1 attack, at this same ranking.

b. Cruiser Primaries: A “standard” cruiser’s primary armament would be a 10@20, which also allows for much flexibility, as a 3@6 or 6@12 has the exact same 50% chance to hit, so any of these three could be used as a substitute.  A “standard” cruiser is defined as either a “heavy” cruiser, a “CA,” which technically means a cruiser with guns larger than 6” (usually 8”) or a “large light” cruiser, which was actually nearly as big as a heavy cruiser and carried a larger # of 6” guns.  Gunnery experts debated on the relative merits of these two types of “treaty” cruisers, but the rule of thumb is that with two cruisers with equivalent armor protection, 8 8” guns are roughly equal to 12 6” guns in firepower, all else being equal.

c. Battleship Primaries: This same relative power rule of thumb carries forward to battleships, in that 2-3 more guns of a given size roughly adds the firepower of the same # of guns an inch or so larger.  Thus, a 10x12” BB would pack about the same punch as an 8x13” BB and a 12x12” BB would be about the same as an 8x14.” With this proviso in mind, a normal (8-9 gun) BB’s attack/defense ranking for its primary armament is the same as the inch diameter on a 20-sider.  Thus, an 8-9 gun 12” BB would roll for a 12@20 for its primary, a 14” gun BB at a 14@20, a 15” BB at a 15@20, and a 16” BB at a 16@20.  The super-BB Yamato would then attack/defend with its primary armament at an 18@20, making it a formidable foe indeed!

2. Hits a ship can take: DD’s and CA’s can still only take 1 hit.  Most BB’s can take 2, and a few of the largest, most powerful ones can take 3.  I haven’t yet decided, however, where the cut-off point for a “Super-BB” that can take 3 hits would be.  The Yamato is a definite yes, along with the American Montana, its never-built direct American competitor of roughly the same size.  I’m leaning toward giving the 45,000 ton + BB’s the same 3-hit “Super-BB” status.  This would include the American Iowa, British Vanguard and German H-Class.  The next level down would be 40,000 tonners, the German Bismark and Italian Vittorio, which I’m leaning toward not giving the status, because if I do a very good argument can be made that the American South Dakota, British KGV and French Richelieu were just as formidable, despite being more faithful to the treaty limitations demanding that BB’s not exceed 35,000 tons… If I open it up this far, nearly all the original “standard” BB’s in the game would be 3-hit “supers.”

I still have many more thoughts in terms under-sea/submarine/ torpedo warfare and air/ carrier warfare, but I’ll save those thoughts for now, as this is already a long post, so I’ll send this out for any who are interested to take a look, digest and share their thoughts.

The map to supremacy is horrible and they have nothing like the unit varation or number of terriotries axis and allies has. plus their is no reason the countries are fighting each other

These are those washers in 3/4 that i posted earlier…painted so its easy to identify nation

@Toonster:

The rules for World at War says the following about an Axis IPC win:

“Germany and Japan win whenever their combined IPC total is 20 IPCs higher than all of the Allies combined.”

Does this mean directly after Japan has finished his turn, implying Russia and US cannot fight back?

Toonster

I assume (as in orig. A&A), that the Axis must maintain the IPC total at the end on one complete round of play (meaning every player has had a turn).