It could be weird to have 2 new players controlling all the minor-allies and minor-axis nations.
Like they would collaborate with superpowers but not really among themselves.

Imperious Leader:
the whole idea of subs is to be on station waiting for some target to come by… If you just allow any destroyer to “SEE” the sub automatically on CM it defeats the purpose. I feel you must install that roll the DD has to make to achieve detection ( either that 3 or 2)

++++ Thanks Imperious Leader for your comments, you are right, I’ll drop this. Ditto the hidden subs.
Here are the new rules (bold stuff is new):

A player can submerge a submarine in his NCM phase or during his CM phase
when he retreats from an attack. Place a control marker under the
sub every round after the round where the sub submerged. When two markers are under the sub, it has to surface
in the next round. (In effect, it can move 8 fields submerged: 2 in the submerging round, 2 in marker one
round, 2 in marker two round, 2 in surfacing round).
(This may be a bit too much, I’ll have to playtest it. Maybe one marker is enough, making for 6 fields)

A submerged submarine may move through hostile sea zones without restriction.
Exception: When it enters a sea zone with an enemy destroyer in it, a die is rolled
for every sub in the pack. All subs must surface if at least one 3 is rolled (super sub: one 2)
Corollary: It is only allowed to enter a sea zone with a destroyer in it in a combat move phase.
Combat ensues when the subs have to surface.
The number of destroyers does not influence the detection dice roll, only the number of subs
(similar to AA gun / Fighter / Bomber rule)
The player may of course make a normal move and simply surface and attack the
destroyers in its CM.
All subs in the same sea zone have to surface at once.

**If a destroyer enters a sea zone where submerged enemy subs are stationed in a combat move,
they are detected on a roll of three (on a two for super subs). Again, roll as many dice as there are
subs in the sea zone, the number of destroyers has no effect. If a sub is detected, they are all detected
and have to suface.
(Optional rule: DD can go sub hunting: if they only move one sea zone in their CM phase instead of two

this has to be declared in advance - they may add 1 to their detection roll.**
Subs are never detected during a destroyer non combat move.

**4)  Attacking and defending subs may submerge except when an enemy destroyer is present (as stated in LHTR 1.3.).
If the sub submerges during combat, this round counts as a full submerging round.
Example: A sub has one marker under it, indicating that it has been submerged for two rounds.
In this round, it attacks on its CM phase, but retreats during the attack by submerging (or, if victorious, it
submerges in its NCM phase). Do not remove the control marker, instead, place another control marker under
the sub.

The markers are only removed if the sub surfaces during its NCM phase. (In effect, giving the opponent
the chance to take at least one combat action against subs even if he does not posess destroyers).**

So, I think I’ve thought of most of the stuff that can occur, I’ll start playtesting,  any feedback is welcome :-)
Additional thought: with this new sub capabiltiy, maybe it would be wise to raise the price of the sub?
(for instance to 10 IPCs?) And maybe the super sub advantages should not be applied to the DD detection
roles. Any comments would be much appreciated.

Regards,
sponge

LOL!! wow thats hardcore!!

What i do is this:

buy specific 1/72 scale Australian infantry/ chindits for Asia and 8th army 1/72 scale for Africa… Thats about it. Unless they have different values having different colors is wild.

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.

This is a truism… I only get to play board wargames every couple months, but the hours spent laboring over the games I am working on gives me about the same “rush”…

GG

ok good.

Actual units would encourage a lot more naval action. Germany would have a reason to attempt a complete naval blockade of the U.K., and the United Kingdoms would have to actively produce a navy instead of stacking their capitol.

http://www.shipwreckregistry.com/index4.htm Looking at this list there were close to 200 convoy routes used during WW2, and the attack.defensive of these convoys was an important part of the war effort. I find it strange that such a large part of the war is only commented on in Germany’s NA - Submarine Interdiction.

My only problem with LL type SBR rules are, they are a distinct advantage for the side that already has the lead.  Say a Japan earning 40+ vs. a Russia earning 20 or a US and UK earning a combined 55 vs. Germany earning 30.

Once you have the economic lead the cumulative effects can be devasting even if you are only doing 3 damage while also losing 3 each time.

I’ve thought about keeping the regular AA fire rules, but for the attacker 1’s and 6’s are removed.  So you can still do 2,3,4,5 in damage but once again the extremes are removed.

++++ or you can do this:

roll one D6:
1-2= 2 ipc lost
3-4= 4 ipc lost
5-6= 6 ipc lost

or
1-2=1 ipc lost’
3-4=2 ipc lost
5-6=4 ipc lost

I’ve also thought about making aa-fire two-fold.
First you roll, then if you get a “1” that means you’ve done damage to the Bomber.
So, a 1/6 shot at doing damage.
Now you roll to see how much damage.
On your second roll if you roll a:

1 or 6:  Bomber is destroyed (about a 5% chance when first roll is taken into account - I think)

2, 3, 4, or 5:  Cash damage to attacker

(alternative)
2,3,4: Cash Damage
5:  Non-lethal hit to bomber, no damage.

In the real war only 10% of sorties were lost on avarage due to flak batteries ( ground based causes)

under our system rolls one d6  if you get a one roll again

if you roll one a second time its destroyed, 2-3 it must return to base no mission. this is dont before any defender can even engage the SBR planes and/ escorts.

@DasReich:

This game is an alteration of history. Imagine if Germany really conquered egypt on R1… How many people would have decided to join the axis instead of the allies, imagine the ressources involved. More oil, more money, more manpower. This has to be taken into account.

Well for that we play with the Neutrals.
Depending on different situations the Neutrals give income to axis or allies or neither.

Yep thats correct… but once Moscow is fallen its possible for western allies to move into Soviet territories because after all communism has fallen and Stalin is dead.

see its quite simple rule

@Imperious:

subs only fire preemtive when a ship other than a DD or CA ( and sub) is not present as they have no ASW capability. this has not changed. In this case if you have a CA or DD then they fire back.

Thats not my interpertation of the OOB.
I think SS always fire in opening-fire. Presence of DD only allows your casualties to stay and be removed later rather than in opening-fire.

Secondly, I was talking about realism not how it works in the proposed rule. Surely the defending destroyers have more to worry about than the attacking destroyers and can’t fight as well.
+++ what would be better?

My quick solution, pulled out of thin air, is a -1 modifer for DDs wishing to perform ASW rolls. Screening, a relative passive job, however does not cause -1 modifier.
FTR and BMB could also say get -1 modifier for wishing to perform ASW rolls.

Its already generous when you think about it.

If not then when 1 DD + 1 SS attacks 1 DD….the defending DD would basically get to shoot twice while the attacking ships shoot once each. A bit strange.

1 DD provides early warning against submarine attack for whole fleet so casualties are not removed in opening-fire.
Is that realistic?

Air supremacy
When only one side has air units, those air units fire preemptively.
          Land Combat                   Naval Combat
FTR    opening-fire, selective?    opening-fire, selective?
BMR   opening-fire?                   opening-fire?

What about hit allocations?

Its only a dream.  :-(

I wanted to find a good houserule to link AAP and AAE together so I thought since I own AAR as well I could use that as a third map to link them together. Anytime I wanted to move troops from AAE to AAP or vice versa I could use AAR. I wouldn’t count the IPC Value of the land represented in the world map. Has anyone else tried this because I think it could work well.

@B.:

Search roll sounds too complicated, why not just stick to the one die roll for each aircraft and hit on a die roll of 1.

The OOB rule of one die per enemy aircraft is massively unrealistic. It had to go!
Damage proportional to size of enemy air force ?!?!

The AA ability should be built-in for all ICs and only aply for SBRs! Maybe the cost for an IC should be raised?

Yeah we have AA built-in for all ICs in phase 1.
As for applying only for SBR…that depends on which way you think of it. Conventional combat can occur near factories. Those factories’ AA can still fire.

ok

@Micoom:

Germany had Already Radar in place to defend the “Atlantic wall” in Early 1941, long before “Barbarossa” would begin… So Radar shouldn’t be a UK advantage at all in a 1942 scenario. Only in a 1939…

We are working here on a Historical edition for A&A, so for this game timelines are essential and therefore more important then game flexibility, IMO.

Germany had short wave radar only, hence did not pick up a signal on airplanes being long away and the warning was too late sometimes!

http://www.wargamer.com/axisandallies/EUROPE/AAE-AAP-combined/aae-aap_combined_MAIN.html

try this…

GG

when you feel happy with the infantry placement rules just tell me and I’ll paste them into the main document

I hope you’ll repost in table format though  :wink:

Skytrex has no legit US supplier… it has to be be ordered direct from UK.