Yes, I was talking about those, I was also thinking about their role in sea battles (against Subs):

Unlike fighters, they don´t need to end their move in a territory with friendly Inf, but they can move max 3 spaces away from a territory with friendly Inf

If there is an Airship involved in sea battle then:
Enemy submarines can not submerge and they can not surprise attack
Airships roll one dice against enemy Sub, hitting it at die roll of 2.

Lets suppose that units generated by the mobilization of minor ally nations can visually be distinguished rather than simply merge into the armies of the controlling power.

This might just mean, for example, a yellow stripe on a French infantry to mark it as Belgian. With all the new pieces available if you contact WOTC this becomes practical.

What differences might these units have?

+1 in combat when defending their homeland; -1 elsewhere, or if their homeland is under enemy occupation?

e.g. - If Poland is under German occupation, will Polish units in the Russian army be less effective fighting for Russia, unless it means fighting over Poland itself?

option to place a new unit in the respective homeland each turn (with a sensible total limit - probably the original starting number; i.e. you can never have more than 3 & 1 Belgian inf and art).

One might extend the principle to colonies, e.g. marking some UK units as Canadian, South African, Indian, Anzac etc.

Would separate Bavarian units be representative of German political divisions?

Polish corps in the Russian army?

Austria-Hungary might have a real problem…

Suggestion about POWs:

Every fourth Infantry-casualty is handled as a prisoner of war.

Use chips to count the numbers.

After a powers political collapse it has to hand out all the POWs to the victors.

Every second of this units can be mobilized next turn and is sent back to the front.

I had an idea to calculate an axis win at the end of each full game turn

Each capital held is worth 3 points (india counts as a capital)
Each other victory city is 2 points
Each completed national objective is 1 point.

Total up on Germany’s turn, on Japans turn and Italy’s turn.
Lets just spitball and say, if the axis number is 31, if they score 31 at any time during rounds 5-10 they win.

For the allies to win, they need to bring the axis down to a certain number, lets say 15

As the game goes on, the numbers get closer to eachother, so lets look at it this way

Turns 5-10
Axis wins with 31 points, lose if they fall below 15 points
Turns 11-15
Axis wins with 27 points, lose if they fall below 19 points
Turns 16-20
Axis wins with 24 points, lose if they fall below 21 points

@knp, 3D6 heavies have never been popular. Back in the early nineties we played off and on with them. It’s one of those things where if you have them, you love them if you don’t, well life is hell. I like the 2D6 and seems like most players can live with them especially on the Global scale and sheer number of units on the board.

Personally I liked it better when SBR came out of the player’s bank. People really hate that one and democracy usually rules most of the time when you have a regular group. I understand why people hated that one, however I liked it. It’s one of the things I like about disrupting convoys.

Honestly I love HBG, you can now add a lot of stuff to the game especially when it comes to tech. SPA and TDs are a must.

Anyway your thoughts on mech blitzing and both dice counting for heavies was spot on.

"END TIME RULE: (See End Time Rule Handout) this is how game will end within the time constraints of the event.
"

Do you have any idea where to find this End Time Rule Handout?

See this thread for various alternative maps:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30553.0

If Russia can attack a neutral Turkey then why not the UK?

But you’re right, since Turkey is likely to go to war T1 there’s little advantage for the Allies in not attacking it (unless you favour a house rule banning the Allies from attacking neutrals).

The point of Austria not attacking a neutral Italy is that it denies Italy an entire turn to collect income and build units.

I made a small but significant modification (written red) in the first post about Subs vs Battleship in 1942 version to increase balance toward the new Subs and for historical reason.

Battleship in G40 and 1942 seems the same at first glance but are far more potent in 1942:
BB A4D4M2C20, takes 2 hits, can bombard @4.

In 1942, Battleship unit recover from damage after any attacking player’s turn. So, in a whole 5 players turn. They could recover up to 4 times from a battle.
The owning Axis player’s attack turn and the 3 Allied attack turns.

In G40, BB can only be repaired once in a whole turn, at the beginning of the owning player’s turn. In addition, you need to move it near a Naval Base before it can be repaired in another turn. So, in this case, it becomes fully operational only 2 turns after being damage.

Compared to the 1942 BB immediate recovery in any Sea-Zone.
G40 BB is clearly a much weaker unit.

By the way, that’s another reason why I consider that BB cost for G40E should be put at 18 IPCs when Cruiser is put at 10 IPCs.

In addition, all BattleCalc simulations show clearly that a balance battle between BB, CA, DD imply this ratio: 1 BB vs 1 CA+1 DD

Uncrustable,
why don’t use this game mechanics instead when attacking transports?

@Baron:

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs.
-When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

This is another way to play a defenseless transport which should be added in this thread to be complete on the optional rule for this topic.

It makes me think about a similar but still a bit different way to played it also as a defenseless but not hopeless transport:

When there is no more warships/aircrafts to defend transports, then each transport roll and for each “1” rolled in a specific round, one TT can escape.
Attacker need to hit transport unit according to each attacking factor (ex.: subs @2/ DD @2 / CA @3, etc.) to destroy one transport.
Each round any un-destroyed transport which haven’t been able to escape can still trying to roll “1” to escape.

The combat end when, either all remaining transports have been able to escape, or have been destroyed.

Their will be no more auto-die, no combat unit will be destroy and the naval combat is done according to usual A&A system rule: a roll is needed to destroy any unit and no unit able to destroy more than 1 unit in the same combat round.

Since I play-tested it,
I say it is much more interesting than auto-die and more balance way to keep some surviving TT than destroying expensive attacking units (one way or an other).

I should add this detail:
transport can get their evasive roll as soon as their is no more warships or planes on their side at the end of a combat round.

Always attacking units can hit first, and it is only surviving transport which can get an evasive roll.

Which means, for instance, if their is 2 transports at the beginning of a round and 2 are hitten by attacker’s units then their is no evasive roll.

@Cmdr:

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was interesting.

My mind immediately jumped to: if you attack and defeat all defenders in one round and they defenders did not score any hits, then the attacker can proceed to attack the next territory in line regardless of movement points left.

The idea, as I thought of it, would be to blow through pickets and attack territories of value, maybe get defenders to actually defend territory?

Might not work, just what immediately jumped to mind.

I like this idea alot

This is not meant to be FFA, neither would I have any interest in FFA
Allies and Russia vs Euro Axis and Japan

my group has toyed with something like this. It was fun, but some countries get so overpowered its ridiculous.

Well these maps are OOB. IN a few cases, i added IPC for neutrals. Other than that, the only change from OOB was added Azores so with long range bombers Germany could reach the east coast.

I think you could use your spy token ( cost 8? ) , then roll a 6 die and use the chart I posted awhile back and or adjust the list to other suggestions or roll a 6 die and 1-3 gets you to roll another die for chart and 4-6 you don’t get to roll a die for chart. I don’t think you should get it every turn but at least half the time. Other wise have one suggestion in chart were spy gains nothing. I think thats mention in chart.

Then tell us your plan then!

It’s not necessary, SS got the best espionage rules.

A lot of this could have dropped a few days ago Red. Let’s say YG had purposely moved your thread. Well only moderators can do that not YG. You wanted the board policed and actively lobbied for it and you got it. Now that the rules aren’t acting in your favor you’re upset and insulting people…again.

In your deletion thread you started acusing anyone against you point of view as throwing temper tantrums. I and some others simply pointed out there were reasons to delete threads you started hurling the insults. If YG’s friends are backing him you shouldn’t wonder why. He’s  done more for this site and the game than a lot of people and has helped people readily with courtesy and knowledgeable advice.
So yeah his friends will go to bat for him.

You haven’t been here that long as well as some of your lobbyists for no thread deletion. You guys lobbied for a site change people didn’t like for reasons other than censoring you.

This site has a culture and most of us can get along just fine without going ballistic. I even posted that I could see why you guys were mad about lost threads and suggeated burying the hatchet. You didn’t. Apologies were made and that still wasn’t good enough. So you escaleted it. You wanted intervention well you got it.

There are plenty of rivalries on this site and people who flat out don’t like eachother at all. However few of them have ever lobbied for a dramatic change over one thread. If you want to sit and talk the way you do to people like you have, I guarantee people will rally against it.

Every since A&A 1914 came out, everyone complained about how:

-Historically inaccurate it was (Italy is at war before Austria-Hungary attacks Serbia, ON THE ALLIED SIDE?)
-Lack of railway movement
-How bad Unrestricted Sub warfare was
-How unbalanced it was
-The problem with India
-No colonial fights
-The Cps seemed like a pushover after their initial forces are gone, unlike the epic struggle Germany would put up in other A&As
-Clearly not play tested a lot
-Rules felt icky (Mostly due to being changed from what we all know and love. in particular Russian revo, Air combat, Infantry for every army)

So i was just Curious about what you guys had to ‘fix’ (or add) these.

@variance:

I never played revised, but from what you describe I imagine these would be a good addition:

Germany
Wolf Packs : If you attack with 3+ subs, raise their attack factor to 3

Soviet Union
Russian Winter: Once per game, the Soviet player may declare a “severe winter”; until the start of the next round, all Soviet Infantry defend on a 3.

Japan
Dug-In Defenders: Infantry on islands defend at 3.

United States
Marines: Your infantry attacks at 3 during the first round of an amphibious assault

United Kingdom
Radar: AA hits at 2

Italy
Rome Express: Destroyers can carry 1 infantry

ANZAC
Sydney Express: Destroyers can carry 1 infantry

Kinda bland. No offence intended.

The only one of those i REALLY have a problem with is japan’s dug-in-defenders.

U.S.A players a notorious for skipping the islands and going straight for Japan so Harry decided to give people encouragement by giving people $$$ for them.

But dug-in-defenders completely nullify this, and it makes for all the more reason to skip the islands as the Allies.

@Young:

@Buran:

I was thinking of somethings similar but would either use an AA gun style attack with 1 die @1 for every ship, up to 3 ships. But I’m not a big fan of this, I was thinking of a more decided unit. Either using the bunkers from Battle of the Bulge, or the new coastal guns the HBG is working on. With these new options then I think that your idea would of a 1 die @3 would work better.

1. I like the idea of a separate unit from HBG (same mold and colour for all).

2. I would put them at $6 each with zero movement and are destroyed upon capture

3. How about making them just like AA guns, multiple guns allowed on one territory, 3@1 per gun, up to the total number of enemy surface warships in the sea zone from which the amphibious assault is coming from, for one round only.

4. In this system, do you think they can be used as casualties?… for $6, I would think so. Should the setup include any?

That’s a better idea. I wasn’t sure how much you would be into HBG units though. Some guys don’t like them. I will probably make some with my craft supplies I just haven’t got around to it.

Hainan cant be captured by the chinese, and serves the same sz.