Posts made by Trenacker

At the moment, the Arc de Triomphe could probably do double duty as the Marble Arch in Libya if one is content to keep the Eiffel Tower on the board.

I’ve put in an order for both new Victory Cities sets in the smaller size compatible with your original run of capitals. The latter are a constant hit at any event I attend.

I didn’t realize that all of the naval vessels you produce are appropriately scaled for A&A. I look forward to making some purchases of cruisers next week, along with the four-stack factories.

@Baron:

Maybe I did not fully understand what this meant and I just catch the “Let me convince you” part. I’m not that fluent in speaking english.

Oh, I see. I was complimenting Ichabod on convincing me that defending with artillery is easier than attacking with artillery.

@Baron:

Nonetheless, the best part I was hoping for is about Russia’s demise according to YG’s Infantry and Artillery values. I believed you wanted to correct this with your units values. I tried to convinced YG that Russia need a strong Artillery, so by my comment I was curious about how you analyze Soviet situations and why your units improve the balance for Russia instead of worsening it. My comments was not focus on unit values but more about what Russia needs to make an interesting game against Italy and Germany.

Russia’s a tricky subject in my games because I introduce new minor powers that change the game balance in the Baltic (Sweden and Poland) and on the Black Sea coast (Greece).

In general, I tend to balance by adding more infantry rather than by adjusting unit values.

Adding cavalry also made a big difference because it provides Russia with a cheap unit able to take good advantage of its interior lines of communication during Barbarossa. The Armored Car might also help Russia get more out of each artillery piece.

Baron Munchhausen, I apologize if this question sounds obtuse, but convince someone of what?

My house rules are specifically designed to address my group’s play styles and preferences. While I’d be glad for someone else to use them, and I put them out there for discussion, I don’t think they have automatic applicability elsewhere. YG is free to read or skip my contributions and use or discard whatever ideas he sees fit. Since Ichabod asked about Russian defenders, I wanted to give him a sense of how we deal with having multiple Infantry-class units. That includes giving him some context. For example, the fact that we use entrenchment is probably significant when we talk about difficulties faced by a country like Russia, which usually plays a defensive game.

I’ll confess to not understanding how the different formulas work. In the past, Argothair has been kind enough to discuss some comparative options with me when I consider whether to add or eliminate new units and need to get a handle on whether players will choose to buy one or another. I don’t really engage with the formulas anymore.

The hard drive with my air-to-air combat rules is currently in storage pending completion of a home office. I should have access again by Christmas. In the meantime, here some quick ideas:

• All aircraft have both air-to-ground and air-to-air values for attack and defense.

• Aircraft may choose to target either air or ground units before each round of combat.

• Bomber aircraft may choose to target air units only on defense.

• Fighter aircraft may not choose to target ground units until all enemy fighters are eliminated.

• Aircraft improve the likelihood of a successful Naval Combat Search. (This is a roll we use to determine whether two fleets find each other on the vastness of the ocean. There is a small likelihood that combat will be averted, simulating weather and chance.)

• Capital ships have a special ability that allows them to conduct AA fire, but it is weak. Cruisers improve AA fire. However, naval units suffer a disadvantage if, when attacked by enemy air units, there are no defending aircraft.

In terms of air units, here is what I use (to the best of my memory):

The first number in A and D is ground attack/defender, the second air attack/defense.

Scout Fighter: A2/2 D2/2 C7 M4
Fighter: A3/4 D3/4 C9 M5
Tactical Bomber: A5/0 D2/1 C10 M5
Strategic Bomber: A6/0 D1/1 C12 M7
Zeppelin: A6/0 D0/2 C12 M6
Transport: A0 D0 C7 M6

A Zeppelin does not need to land after each turn. If a Zeppelin ends its turn on an enemy territory and there are defenders in that territory, the owner of that territory immediately rolls 1 AAA shot. If any AAA are present, they may fire as well. Fighter aircraft present in the same territory or in an adjacent territory with an air base may scramble.

A Transport may load up to 2 friendly airborne or regular infantry at a friendly airbase. It may carry these units to a destination where they unload as normal, or else make a para drop with Airborne Infantry at any point along the way. It may not land and take off again on the same turn.

We are also experimenting with a rule that grants a +1 die bonus to an attacker that has air superiority from the very start of combat.

Well, Ichabod, color me convinced. I am going to use the phrase, “Let me convince you” next time I need to persuade somebody to accept correction.

So figure, according to my house rules, the infantry units are as follows in a d8 or d12 system:

Colonial Infantry are A1D1C2M1, with no abilities.

Cavalry are A1D1C3M2, with the ability to blitz and withdraw.

Regular Infantry are A1D2C3M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only and to entrench. This should fix your concerns about Russia’s ability to defend itself, Ichabod.

Airborne Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to conduct parachute drops from transport aircraft, to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Airborne Infantry attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct airborne assaults.

Marine Infantry are A1D1C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on defense only, and to entrench. Marines may reduce amphibious defenses by 1 on a 1:1 basis during an amphibious assault and attack at 2 during the first round of combat when they conduct amphibious assaults.

Heavy Infantry are A2D2C5M1, with the ability to be supported by artillery on attack and defense, to entrench, and to neutralize entrenchment on a 1:1 basis during an attack.

Armored Cars are A2D2C7M2, with the ability to conduct reconnaissance (reroll artillery on a 1:1 basis), to Blitz, and to withdraw.

I should add that, in my games, artillery fire precedes normal combat. Casualties in this phase are removed without a chance to fire back. The attacker always goes first, then the defender, when resolving the artillery phase. After that, combat proceeds normally.

We also use Der Kuenstler’s rules on etrenchment and amphibious assaults. The entrenchment option will presumably give the Russians additional breathing room.

Per Narvik’s comments, we have developed air-to-ground and air-to-air ratings for all air units, although I am leaning strongly toward including an air phase that precedes naval or ground combat.

Why don’t the moderators just ban this Vann guy? He’s so obviously a troll. He spends inordinate amounts of time baiting people, particularly Young Grasshopper. Vann is basically a cyber-bully.

Has anybody given thought to qualifying artillery support so that the lowest-cost infantry are either unable to use that ability or able to use it only on attack? (I think being able to receive support while attacking is probably easier than coordinating defensive artillery fire.)

Der Keunstler has had some great ideas about infantry, especially the idea that they Might be able to entrench. Perhaps elite infantry should be able to neutralize entrenchment on a 1:1 basis?

Leatherneck has a great idea to qualify airborne attacks so that they suffer a penalty unless made in conjunction with either a land or amphibious invasion. I also love Der Keunstler’s special rules for amphibious landings: defenders get entrenchment tokens to simulate beach defenses that absorb hits.

Are the new city markers being released in the original size, or only in the new, larger size?

Thanks, General!

Do I need different primer for different shades of color plastic?

Our group has actually used larger-than-normal dice for aircraft movement. They are printed with German-language translations for one through six.

Okay, so we’re talking white primer, then one or more coats of the model paint, and then a laquer?

Is all of this from Taimya spray cans?

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I have an on-topic question.

When selecting paint, if I want to coat a darker plastic with a lighter shade, do a I need to do a white coat first? Say if I want to paint my Italians yellow…

The people who dissent are generally down on the idea of a Japanese attack that drives all the way to Moscow. They want to simulate the war as it was fought.

How far back do you want to go?

Would it unbalance the game badly if the British and French kicked off the game with a non-combat move to give them the option of consolidating their forces? I’m afraid it would. Historically, budget constraints, faulty intelligence reports, and (probably most of all) fear of another apocalyptic blood-letting stayed the British from reinforcing Singapore and the French from invading Germany when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland.

It would be possible to place Italy ahead of the British in the turn order, but it seems as if that would only serve to strengthen the Axis by allowing Italy to group its naval units. The same problem arises on the other side if you adjust the size of the Royal Navy and French Navy and concentrates. At some point, you just get murder balls that are effectively immune from attack by anything but Strategic Bombers.

Should the Soviets go first so they can sweep the Finns and decide on war with Japan? I feel like I’ve heard a fair number of Axis & Allies players disdain a big Russo-Japanese war as ahistorical.

The best approach I’ve seen was a friend who cut his factories in half with a hacksaw. Large factories are majors, while the smaller, halved factories are minors.

I’ve got mine painted three different colors. Bought a lot of 50 for a few dollars from a vendor at Nashcon in May 2016.

Before Nashcon, I used red Monopoly hotels for the major factories and the green hotels for minor factories. I still like to use the green ones every now and again because I think they’re nifty.

EBard, sounds awesome. I look forward to hearing when the new sets go on sale!

For Singapore, I recommend sculpting the Raffles Hotel, which is strongly associated with the British colonial period.

I just want to plug the Marble Arch again, since Tripoli and Cyrenaica are hotly contested in Global 1940, 2nd ed.

EBard, that sounds like good reasoning re: capitals of countries not significant in the OOB game.

I use some house rules and a custom map, so Brazil and Argentina are “in play,” meaning I’m personally interested in victory markers for them, but I agree that it might not be a sound business decision for you to try to sell such sculpts.

For Belgrade, I think St. Mark’s Church is more distinctive than other options, which might too closely resemble the Reichstag.

For Vladivostok, I’m not thrilled about the Viroshilov Battery, but that’s because it seems to resemble a basic coastal gun.

For Helsinki, look at the Helsinki Central Station.

Have you considered anything for Eriteria and Ethiopia or Libya? The Tagliero building would be awesome. So would the Marble Arch.

I am really excited by this news. I have the full set of high-detail markers and they make a fantastic accent to any board.

The Hagia Sofia is an obvious option for Istanbul/Constantinople.

For Vladivostok, I guess your options are the Arseniev Museum (formerly The Museum of the  Society for the Study of the Amur), the Vladivostok Fortress proper, or the Voroshilov Battery.

I recommend the Cape Town City Hall for South Africa.

For Brazil, what about the Manaus Opera House? I know it isn’t in the capital, but the building is iconic.

In Buenos Aires, study the Kavanagh Building, the National Congress, and the Casa Rosada?

Yeah. I made Brazil a colony of Portugal in order to get both of those countries into the game as a joint minor power. They square off with Argentina, which is divided now into three territories.

Spain’s colonies in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, the West Indies, and the Philippines are restored. To compensate for the significantly delayed entry of the United States into the war, the British have a non-combat move at the start of the game that allows them to recall the BC (battlecruiser) and DD that start the game off the coast of Malaya (Singapore). A light carrier with attendant Tac bomber has also been added to the Far Eastern Fleet at Ceylon. The British garrison in Malaya has been upgraded with an additional British INF, an AA gun, and a Dutch fighter. A British transport is off Hong Kong with the option to evacuate that colony. There is now a fortress on Singapore.

The Dutch garrison in the East Indies consists of 5 total infantry spread across the four islands: 2 on Java, 2 on Sumatra, and 1 on the Celebes. There is an armored car on Java, along with an AA gun and a regular artillery piece. On Sumatra, there are a Tac bomber and cavalry. (For cavalry, I use pieces from a combination of different Risk games. There are three different types of horsemen available, so in theory, one could invent different types of cavalry, and the color variation is very good for those who prefer not to do any painting. For the curious, there is a cavalryman on the march, a cavalryman with saber raised mid-charge, and a cavalryman aiming a carbine from the saddle.) The Dutch have 1 cruiser and 1 DD on-station, with a light carrier in the Atlantic headed toward the Cape.

The French have a cruiser off Saigon. I divided Indochina into north (Tonkin) and south (Annam). The French have two infantry, an artillery, and a fighter to defend the place. The Siamese have 3 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 armor, and 1 artillery poised to invade.

The Spanish have 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 cavalry, and 1 artillery on the Philippines, which been divided into two zones, north (Luzon) and south (Mindanao). There is a fortress at Corregidor Island (Luzon). A destroyer and transport are off the coast of Peru and could opt to go west into the Pacific Ocean. A destroyer and cruiser are present in an adjacent sea zone.

To lure the Japanese, an American Marine is stationed on Guam, backed up by a tactical bomber and an AA gun. An American submarine lurks off the coast of Alaska. The American fleet at Honolulu now has an added battlecruiser, while there are two battleships at San Diego.

The Japanese have been given 4 veteran infantry to beef up their presence in China, as well as a pair of cavalry units, one armor with the Kwangtung Army, and two each in additional, veteran fighters and Tac bombers.

The Russians gain 2 AAA in Vladivostok, along with two infantry, one fortress, and one fighter. In neighboring Amur there are two infantry, one fighters, one artillery, and one armor. A pair of Russian cavalry are in the nearer two Mongolian territories, with another infantryman waiting on the northern shore of Lake Baikal. Vladivostok and Leningrad are linked by the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

I took strategic bombers away from everyone except the U.K. & Dominions (U.K. Europe) and the United States at game start.

Three big questions every house rule creator has got to answer:

1. At the end of the day, do my players still want to play a game in which events proceed at least roughly along the same course as the actual war? The answer to this question dictates whether you “beef up” continental France and change the turn order to allow the Italian player to avert the Taranto Raid. I think most Axis & Allies players do want to simulate the Second World War. For that reason, they will be hesitant to thwart the T1 German occupation of Paris.

2. What scale are you going for? In theory, Axis & Allies apprehends the strategic level of warfare. Ground units are generally equivalent to corps or armies, sea units to squadrons or fleets, and air units to wings. Some exceptions are made for detached commands, particularly in colonial garrisons, such as at Hong Kong.

3. Do you want to play Axis & Allies? The easiest way to deal with a lot of the historical inadequacies of the game is to add card-driven mechanics, but then you start getting away from the elegant simplicity of the out-of-box game (and here, I am referring even to Global 1940, 2nd ed.).

The out-of-box game tries to capture the general themes of the war at the expense of realism (of course). For instance, given their contribution to Italian GDP at the time, Italy’s colonies should generate no income. The Netherlands should be worth far more than it is. The Italian Navy should be smaller, French naval units should begin the game off the coast of Tunisia, and the India garrison should be vastly larger.

Here are some ideas for making the out-of-box game slightly more interesting:

1. Purchase small red dice and use them to change or increase particular IPC values.

2. Consider using a silver-tipped Sharpie to trace borders, then add new divisions where you think there should be new borders and sea zones.

3. Combine Holland and Belgium to make the Netherlands. In addition to the Dutch East Indies garrison, add a Dutch infantryman to the Belgian Congo.

4. Consider starting both French and Dutch transports somewhere near the Horn of Africa, en route to reinforce their colonies in the Far East. Specify that there are already infantry aboard. This gives some flexibility to the players to decide where they want those transports to end up. Add a Dutch fighter to Malaya at game start.

5. Consider adding new units, including units that are obsolete and cannot be built. I’ve added cavalry (A1 D1 C3 M2, with ability to blitz and retreat), airborne (A1 (2 during first round of combat after drop) D1 C4 M1, with ability to reduce enemy fortification), and armored cars (A2 D2 C5 M2, with ability to blitz and reroll 1 die if matched with an attacking artillery unit). I use Der Kuntzler’s rules for airborne, and I am going to incorporate Leatherneckinlv’s suggestion that they suffer an extra defender AAA roll unless accompanied by a simultaneous land or amphibious attack. I’ve also added Battlecruisers, which are A6 D5 M3 C16. Cruisers have an Air Defense special ability based on Der Kunstler’s rules. Coastal Battleships are A5 D4 M2 C-. Neither Battelcruisers nor Coastal Battleships are capital ships. I use a d12. No combat may go beyond 3 rounds before “locking,” as in A&A 1914.

6. Beef up the French presence in IndoChina by adding 1 INF, 1 ARTY, and 1 Fighter. Add a battleship and a submarine off the Tunisian coast to simulate Mars-el-Kebir. Garrison North Africa with at least 3 French INF and 1 CAV.

7. I rebalanced naval forces. France has 3BB and 1BC, whereas Italy has 1BB and 1BC. I gave both Light Carriers as well. The British Far East Command gets 1BC and 1 Light Carrier (which I liked in Oztea’s 1941 setup).

8. Add Siam. They get a destroyer to simulate their two coastal battleships.

9. Add Poland. 5 INF, 2 CAV, 1 ARTY, 1 ARM, and 1 Fighter. They also get 1 DD.

10. In the Far East, give the Soviets a Fortress on Vladivostok, along with 2AA, 1 Minor IC, 2 INF, 1 Fighter, and 1 ARM with 2 INF in Amur, as well as more units toward Lake Baikal.

11. The British and Dominions get 4BB and 1BC total. Add that to the 1BC in the British Far East, plus a bevy of cruisers.

12. Break Turkey up into 3 parts and give 2 to Greece. (Say they won the Greco-Turkish War, with European help). Then make Greece a minor power.

13. Give Portugal Brazil and garrison its colonies. Add Argentina.

14. Give the Philippines to Spain so that Japanese aggression there isn’t an automatic trigger for American involvement in the war.

Have you seen my proposed rules for a Naval Combat Search before naval combat? Seaplanes can be used to add significant modifiers.