Posts made by Andy Palmer

@magnum I’m not yet convinced that letting them pick what they want, and potentially the same thing, is a problem. If anything, this will give them the opportunity to try out different strategies, involving research, and see how they work.

@magnum In my experience, one of the major reasons research is so under-utilized is that you may spend all that money for something that is of no use to you. It is that risk that makes people not want to research, so this proposal specifically addresses that factor.

@magnum said in [Global 1940] Escort Carriers:

I would make the escort carriers 7 IPC, but with only 1 movement as they only travelled at 19 knots, not 33 knots like the big fleet carriers.

That’s a great idea!

I’ve played wargames since 1981 and have played Classic Axis and Allies over a hundred times. Given life (you know, getting married, having kids, starting a career, etc.), my opportunities for A&A were greatly reduced, though I still bought the games to add to my collection (1914, D-Day, 1942 2E, Europe, etc.). (I did manage to fit in a decade of SFB, and a number of other games, so wasn’t completely bereft)

Having some time, I was excited to pull out A&A 1940 and put the Europe and Pacific maps together for a global game. I played all sides, having found it a good way to get familiar with both the rules and the rhythm of the game.

Unfortunately, while I’ve liked most of the rule changes and the the scale of the map, I found the game very unbalanced. I discovered this forum and my finding was quickly validated. Unfortunately, beyond the alignment with my finding of imbalance, the best practices for playing the sides left me wanting. Not that they weren’t completely correct, but that they left me unsatisfied that a game with such potential could be made so linear, and so ‘unhistorical’.

I’ve thought about this for the last couple of weeks and I believe I have nailed down a core element of the problem: the scale.

Classic Axis and Allies works because it is 6 month turn and larger territory and sea zone spaces, so pretty much everything is abstracted.to a great degree. There are multiple paths to victory, but also a measure of forgiveness built in, because you can reposition your forces with such relative speed. In other words, it works because of its simplicity.

A&A Global keeps the 6 month turns, but approximately doubles the number of “spaces”. This is, IMO, part of the issue.

Let’s take the Atlantic Wall, the expected path of the Allies landing in Western Europe to retake France and threaten Germany.

In Classic there is only Western Europe, adjacent to the “North Sea” sea zone and within 1 turn striking distance of the Eastern US. THAT is the Atlantic Wall. Take it and you are adjacent to both Germany and Southern Europe. There is no safe place to park a counter attack force and nothing to keep that stream of UK and US ground forces from piling in there turn after turn.

In Global, there are 2 equivalent “Atlantic Wall” territories - Normandy-Bordeaux and Belgium-Holland. From a purist 2:1 perspective, this matches the scale change. However, there the comparison stops. Behind these two “beachfront” territories is France, a safe place in which Germany can park a powerful counter attacking force with no risk of it being attacked or even pinned by another force. In addition, forces from the US cannot get there in one turn. They can either sit in the Atlantic, risking attack, or go to Morocco, where the Gibraltar naval base will allow them to move up to the North Sea. And if this 1 turn delay wasn’t enough, the ability for the Germans to so easily reduce the British industrial complex all together creates a scenario in which due to both the implementation of scale and the rule changes, gives the Germans a significant edge in holding the Atlantic Wall.

Then we look at the Soviet Union. For arguments sake, let’s say the Japanese leave the Russians alone. In Classic, before taking Russia the Soviets will only lose 25% of the IPC production (6 of 24). In Global, the Soviets give up 35% of their IPCs (13 of 37) just by retreating back to the Russia/Volgograd/Caucasus line (or 43% if you include the national objectives). So we go from a scenario in which the Soviets try to hold their capital with 3/4 of their economy behind them to one, in Global, in which the “best practice” is to try and defend Moscow with less than half of their economy. Here is where the implementation of the scale has crippled the Soviets.

Then we go to the Pacific, where the addition of the naval bases made the ocean the same size, despite the scale change. You can still go from Hawaii to Japan in one turn and can still control the Pacific from the Caroline Islands, able to go to Hawaii, Japan, Hong Kong, or Sydney in a single move. But, whereas the limited territories made the Pacific in Classic about territory grabs, the more expansive scale, albeit with matching naval range, makes the Pacific game a cagey affair with no opportunity to out maneuver your opponent. Again, a problem of scale combined with rule change.

I think the solution to this, to create a Global Axis and Allies game with the sort of play and decisions INTENDED in A&A Global, is to increase the scale again, to about twice that of Global, or four times that of classic. And with a time scale of one turn to a 3 months, rathar than 6.

This would allow us to have the Battle of Britain, with 3-4 territories instead of single United Kingdom, so the Germans could try to prevent the ability for the RAF to scramble into the channel.

This would allow us for a true Battle of France, with Holland, Belgium, the Ardennes, and Alsace-Lorraine all bordering Germany.

It would allow for a true Atlantic Wall scenario, with the French coast divided into Aquitaine, Normandy, and Picardy, so now the Germans have to defend five territories instead of two.

It would provide enough territories in the Russian steppes that the Germans couldn’t just rush full speed, but would have to be more cautious of Soviet counter attacks, where maneuver would matter as much as strength.

If there is any alignment/interest, I can start another thread about this newly scaled game.

Thought of another one.

UNITED STATES
Anti-Aircraft Cruisers [10] When defending, your cruisers may make 3 attacks like an AAA instead of using their defense value of 3.

Two things I don’t like about the OOB Research and Development rules are:

1. Too much randomness with success, You could spend 25 and get 5 breakthroughs or spend 100 and get none.
2. Too much randomness on developments. You have very little control over what breakthroughs you get. You could be the Soviets and get Improved Shipyards instead of something useful like Radar.

A more realistic approach would be one in which you choose what to research and work toward that goal. In that light, I’ve put together the following proposal.

Step 1: Buy Research Dice
Each research die cost 5 IPCs and is specific to one development. You can buy as many research dice as you like, but only one each turn may be applied to each development.

Step 2: Roll Research Dice
Track the value rolled on each die for each development chosen

Step 3: Mark Progress toward Development
Apply the value rolled to the target for that development. If you meet or exceed the target value, you gain that development. Any excess points are lost.

I’ve put together a list of developments, by nation, including some I feel are better incorporated into the game full-time (i.e., paratroopers) as well as some new ones as ultimately, it’s easier to remove items from this list than add to them.
Key: Development [target number]

GERMANY
Advanced Artillery [10]
Rockets [10]
Paratroopers [5]
Increased Factory Production [15]
War Bonds [20]
Improved Mechanized Infantry [10]
Super Submarine [15]
Jet Fighters [15]
Improved Shipyards [15]
Radar [15]
Long-Range Aircraft [15]
Heavy Bombers [20]
Multi-Use Artillery [10] AAA gain an attack value of 2 and can choose to defend with a value of 2 instead of making AA attacks.
Wolf-Pack [5] Submarines can be combined with other submarines. A matched pair of two submarines increases the attack value of both submarines from 2 to 3.
Condor Spotting [5] Strategic bombers can be combined with submarines. A matched pair of a strategic bomber and a submarine increases the submarine’s attack value from 2 to 3.
Advanced Raiders [10] Battleships and Cruisers roll 2 dice for Convoy Disruption instead of 1.
Tiger Tanks [15] The defense value of your tanks increases to 4.

SOVIET UNION
Advanced Artillery [10]
Rockets [20]
Paratroopers [10]
Increased Factory Production [10]
War Bonds [20]
Improved Mechanized Infantry [15]
Super Submarine [20]
Jet Fighters [20]
Improved Shipyards [20]
Radar [15]
Long-Range Aircraft [15]
Heavy Bombers [20]
Movable Factories [10] During the Noncombat Move, you may move an industrial complex you control to another eligible territory you control within 2 spaces. An industrial complex may not mobilize units on a turn it is moved.
Conscription [5] Infantry can be mobilized in any originally controlled territory. No more can be mobilized in a territory in a turn than the IPC value of the territory.

UNITED STATES
Advanced Artillery [10]
Rockets [20]
Paratroopers [5]
Increased Factory Production [10]
War Bonds [10]
Improved Mechanized Infantry [15]
Super Submarine [15]
Jet Fighters [20]
Improved Shipyards [10]
Radar [10]
Long-Range Aircraft [15]
Heavy Bombers [15]
Marines [5] Infantry performing amphibious assaults in the Pacific map have an attack value of 2 rather than 1. This is not increased when supported by artillery.
Atomic Bomb [30] A successful strategic bombing raid will destroy the industrial complex (remove it from the map) rather than damage it. May only be used once per turn.

JAPAN
Advanced Artillery [15]
Rockets [20]
Paratroopers [5]
Increased Factory Production [15]
War Bonds [15]
Improved Mechanized Infantry [20]
Super Submarine [10]
Jet Fighters [20]
Improved Shipyards [10]
Radar [15]
Long-Range Aircraft [15]
Heavy Bombers [20]
Long Lance Torpedoes [5] Cruisers and battleships can be combined with destroyers. A matched pair of a cruiser or battleship and a destroyer increases the destroyer’s attack value from 2 to 3.
Destroyer Ferries [5] Destroyers can carry 1 infantry unit, similar to a transport.
Pillboxes [10] Infantry on islands have their defense value increased from 2 to 3.

UNITED KINGDOM
Advanced Artillery [10]
Rockets [20]
Paratroopers [5]
Increased Factory Production [15]
War Bonds [15]
Improved Mechanized Infantry [15]
Super Submarine [15]
Jet Fighters [20]
Improved Shipyards [10]
Radar [5]
Long-Range Aircraft [15]
Heavy Bombers [15]
Big Wing [10] Intercepting fighters can initiate a second round of air combat after the bombing has occurred

I wasn’t sure if it was necessary (or prudent) to develop charts for Italy and ANZAC.

Feedback welcomed and I’m especially interested in more flavorful historical development ideas.

Thanks - Andy

AA Guns - I think the price is fine at 5. I still buy them but rarely more due to their limited usefulness than their price. i.e., if they cost only 3 I wouldn’t buy more than I do today. At the end of the day, as written, they are more of a deterrent than an actual combat unit. Want to make them “feel” like they are worth 5? Give them the option of AA fire or a defense value of 2 in each combat. Flak 88s certainly killed enough Matildas in North Africa.

Cruisers - Yeah, as written, there is certainly an argument for reducing them to 11 (though I wouldn’t touch the Battleship cost). They really need something a little more to make them worth 12, whether its the ability to bombard facilities on islands or even an R&D option to create Anti-Aircraft Cruisers that can act as an AA gun rather than using their 3 defense value.

Tactical Bombers - I think they are perfectly priced at 11. Their ability to attack at a 4 both on land and at sea is powerful, arguably more so than the fighter’s ability to defend at a 4. I think perhaps it is only the relative cost of the strategic bombers that make them seem a poor buy.

Strategic Bombers - I would pay 13 for these; I may even pay 14.

I figured 8 was too low, given than being able to be in two locations is worth >0. Perhaps 9?

I figure there aren’t too many things classified as Islands that would have air bases so far away as to make them invulnerable to shore bombardment. The air fields on Guadalcanal and Wake island certainly got hit and both Hickam and Pearl could be hit from the sea. By definition, this ability assumes no defenders. Even a single scrambling fighter or defending destroyer nullifies the ability.

@GEN-MANSTEIN said in Island Bombardment:

Why not have them bombard anywhere on map instead of just the pacific ?

Nothing in the rule limits it to the Pacific; that was just my initial flavor text. It would work equally well on Iceland or Malta.

I have found the use of submarines in Global pretty underwhelming. While the Axis don’t need any help in the OOB game, I did want something that would provide the desired flavor, within the scope of A&A (and understandably balanced by some benefit to the Allies).

German Submarines (U-boats)
Cost: 7
Attack: 2
Defense: 1
Move: 2
Unit Characteristics
German submarines, commonly known as u-boats, benefited over their opponents with advanced tactics. Except the characteristics above and where mentioned below, they are treated as submarines for all other purposes, including Surprise Strike, Submersible, On Station, Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly, Doesn’t Block Enemy Movement, Can’t Hit Air Units, and Can’t Be Hit by Air Units.
Limited Nationality: Only Germany can purchase German submarines.
Wolf Pack: German submarines can be combined with other German submarines. A matched pair of two German submarines increases the attack value of both submarines from 2 to 3.
Condor Spotting: Strategic bombers can be combined with German submarines. A matched pair of a strategic bomber and a German submarine increases the submarine’s attack value from 2 to 3.

I wanted something that better represented some of the capabilities and uses of the IJN destroyers. Their ability to carry troops was used heavily in battles like Guadalcanal and their long lance destroyers were a well respected weapon. Instead of just giving an attack of 3, I came up with the long lance tactics, to ensure the bonus was restricted to true naval battles and not when sub hunting.

Japanese Destroyers
Cost: 9
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Move: 2
Unit Characteristics
Japanese destroyers were unique for two reasons: their powerful long lance torpedoes and their doctrine of ferrying infantry units. Except the characteristics above and where mentioned below, they are treated as destroyers for all other purposes, including Anti-Sub Vessel.
Limited Nationality: Only Japan can purchase Japanese destroyers.
Long Lance Tactics: Cruisers and Battleships can be combined with Japanese Destroyers. A matched pair of a cruiser or battleship and a Japanese destroyer increases the Japanese destroyer’s attack value from 2 to 3.
Carry Units: A Japanese destroyer can carry land units belonging to you or to friendly powers (provided both powers are at war). Its capacity is 1 infantry unit. Units on a Japanese destroyer are cargo; they can’t attack or defend while at sea and are destroyed if their transport is destroyed.
Loading and Offloading: A Japanese destroyer can load cargo in friendly sea zones before, during, and after it moves.
Loading onto and/or offloading from a Japanese destroyer counts as a land unit’s entire move; it can’t move before loading or after offloading. Place the land units alongside the transport in the sea zone. If the Japanese destroyer moves in the Noncombat Move phase, any number of units aboard can offload into a single friendly territory.
Land Units belonging to friendly powers must load on their controller’s turn, be carried on your turn, and offload on a later turn of their controller. This is true even if the transport remains in the same sea zone. Whenever a Japanese destroyer offloads, it can’t move again that turn. If a Japanese destroyer retreats, it can’t offload that turn. A t Japanese destroyer can’t offload cargo onto another transport. A Japanese destroyer can’t load or offload while in a hostile sea zone. Remember that hostile sea zones contain enemy units, but that for purposes of determining the status of a sea zone, submarines, u-boats, and transports are ignored.
A Japanese destroyer can load and offload units without moving from the friendly sea zone it’s in (this is known as “bridging”). Each such transport is still limited to its cargo capacity. Once it offloads, it can’t move, load, or offload again that turn.
Amphibious Assaults: A Japanese destroyer can take part in an amphibious assault step of the Conduct Combat phase. That is the only time a Japanese destroyer can offload into a hostile territory.

As expected, a cheaper means of providing air cover.

Escort Carriers
Cost: 10
Attack: 0
Defense: 1
Move: 2
Unit Characteristics
Escort Carriers represent smaller classes of aircraft carriers, often used in convoy defense. Except the characteristics above and where mentioned below, they are treated as aircraft carriers for all other purposes, including Carry Aircraft and Air Defense.
Non-Capital Ship: Escort carriers are destroyed by a single hit.
Limited Air Capacity: Escort carriers may only carry a single air unit.

This rule is intended to give Cruisers and Battleships a bit more love and to represent the naval bombardment of airfields and the like that occurred in the Pacific during the war.

Island Bombardment
An island bombardment is a direct attack on a facility on an island (see Islands). During this step, you can bombard enemy air bases and naval bases with your battleships and cruisers. When you damage these facilities, their capabilities are decreased or eliminated, and your enemy must spend IPCs to repair them in order to restore those capabilities. Repairs can be made by the units’ controlling player during his or her Purchase and Repair Units phase (see Phase 1: Purchase and Repair Units).
To conduct an island bombardment, the attacking player moves his or her battleships and/or cruisers to the sea zone on the map containing the target(s). If there is NOT combat in the sea zone in which you are performing the bombardment, you roll a die for each participating battleship and cruiser. Any results higher than the attack value of the unit is ignored. Any other value indicates the amount of damage caused to the facility. In other words, a battleship can do 0-4 points of damage and a cruiser can do 0-3 points of damage.

Cruisers
Cost: 13
Attack: 3
Defense: 3
Move: 2
Unit Characteristics
Offshore Bombardment: Your cruisers (along with your battleships) can conduct offshore bombardment during an amphibious assault (see Step 2. Battleship and Cruiser Bombardment).
Island Bombardment: A cruiser can make a direct attack against an enemy air or naval base on an island in the same sea zone. Such an attack on a facility is an island bombardment (see Island Bombardment).

Battleships
Cost: 20
Attack: 4
Defense: 4
Move: 3
Unit Characteristics
Capital Ship: Battleships require 2 hits to destroy. If an undamaged battleship is hit once, even by a submarine’s Surprise Strike, turn it on its side to mark its damaged status. Don’t remove an attacking battleship from play or move a defending battleship behind the casualty strip unless it takes a second hit. If a battleship survives a combat having taken a hit, it can be repaired by a visit to an operate friendly major naval base.
Offshore Bombardment: Your battleships (along with your cruisers) can conduct offshore bombardment during an amphibious assault (see Step 2. Battleship and Cruiser Bombardment).
Island Bombardment: A battleship can make a direct attack against an enemy air or naval base on an island in the same sea zone. Such an attack on a facility is an island bombardment (see Island Bombardment).

Okay, it sounds reasonable then. As Escorts primary purpose (from a game play perspective) is to take interceptor hits instead of bombers (the ability to shoot down interceptors seems incidental in comparison), I’m inclined to pair it with a rule that escorts can each protect one bomber, but any unprotected bombers take interceptor hits first. This way at least you have a reason for intercepting escorted bombers.

Playing Axis and Allies 1940 Global, I’m finding strategic bombing to be very effective. Even with 5 US and UK fighters in the United Kingdom, the Germans are still able to bomb the UK to oblivion each turn, forcing a spend of ~12 or more each turn to undo the damage enough to increase their forces.
While at its core, I understand and agree with the effectiveness of the bombing attacks, it is the ineptitude of the defending fighters, the “interceptors”, that seems misaligned with the heroics of the Battle of Britain.

If I were to house rule that interceptors hit on a 2 or less, instead of just a 1 (with jet fighters at a 3 or less), while escorts and bombers remained a 1, what is the consensus on what that would do to game balance?

Thanks - Andy