Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition)

[Imperious Leader]

ICs automatically have AA firing ability (i.e. it’s the IC that fires not the AA gun). So the cost of the AA firing ability is included in the cost of the IC. This simplifies the game by taking those needless AA gun pieces off the board and leaving more room for the other units.

yes exactly… but these are not OOB rules

Do you want to reduce the number of unit types even further? What I mean is that technically you don’t even need IC pieces. Automatically build units in VC locations (with some set limit).

I think we still need the “pieces” because in the case of the Soviet Union we should allow them to move them to another location which was done historically to move soviet production outside of the range of german bombers… it should remain a piece at least for them… I dont know whether to allow the ability to buy more factories… depending on what come about on the idea of yours going with builds in non- IC territories… at this point i dont think we can make that decision…

Related to the last question, do you want to go with my idea of having infantry pieces placed by ICs or by VCs?

[Imperious Leader]

I have the same concern with both these changes. People are going to download the rules and map and use the same pieces from the old game that they are using now. If we introduce new units and/or new dice I would feel obligated to supply new units or something so the people get the ‘complete’ game.

On this point they use the old BB from 2nd edition for the cruiser unit, and buy a box of 1/72 scale infantry for like 2-6 bucks on ebay…I think many who would even consider playing a “varient” have some resources and at least own 2nd edition milton bradley a/a

we can leave out d12 … thats too far of a step… d6 will have to remain for now the only option. however, on AA guns they should have a larger spread… perhaps just using a d10 only for this… IN the war only 10% of planes were shot down on average by All AA guns… rolling a 1 out of 6 is totally bogus, especially when you lose your only bomber… something here has to be fixed… also this happens with a tranny getting at 1 killing a plane… i dont think “liberty ships” should have any firepower… thats what we have destroyers for (to protect them).

We could probably find a way around the problem of using new parts, but is it really worth it? I propose leaving the cruisers and mech infantry and d12 just for Axis and Allies Advanced and have this version use no new parts (to that end, do we really need a new map or can we just use the old one). I think people will be more likely to jump at this ruleset if we use no new pieces like LHTR or AARe does. What you think?

[theduke]

One other thought I had about the turn sequence…

What if non-combat movement was after place new units? If we switch the order of these 2 stages then we don’t need any special rules about fighters able to land on newly purchased carriers. The newly purchased carriers are already there on the board when the fighters move to them in the non-combat movement phase!

Someone could argue against this switch by saying that it would be confusing to have sort out the newly purchased units that you couldn’t move in non-combat from those units that you could move in non-combat. My counter to this argument is that pieces that were moved in the combat phase already have to be sorted out from those other units available to move in non-combat. We could have purchased units placed before non-combat movement and treat the purchased units exactly like they were just involved in combat (i.e. that they can’t move in non-combat).

[theduke]

I agree that AA guns are too powerful. I think I can come up with something so we could represent flak realistically and still use only d6 dice. My first thought is to have the AA gun roll 2 d6 dice instead of 1 and if both come out a 1 or 2 then a plane is shot down 1/3*1/3=1/9 which is about 1/10 (AA guns would have to roll against enemy planes individually). I think I can come up with something better if I think about it more.

[theduke]

About adding mech infantry units…. My house rules concerning infantry placed at VCs not at ICs were partly to represent the ability to move units fast to the front lines (like mech infantry). If we include my infantry at VCs rule and new mech infantry units aren’t we kind of double counting for those units. Maybe we don’t need new mech infantry units that move 2. Maybe it’s good enough just to have them able to be placed on the front lines.

[theduke]

Tell me about what abilities you want cruiser units to have. Can we just include those abilities in the destroyer unit? So, when someone buys a ‘destroyer’ piece they are actually buying a model that represents a small fleet of destroyers and cruisers. There would have to be some big differences between the 2 pieces to justify a whole new piece. I think that’s probably why Larry left them out in the versions he’s released so far.

[Imperious Leader]

About adding mech infantry units…. My house rules concerning infantry placed at VCs not at ICs were partly to represent the ability to move units fast to the front lines (like mech infantry). If we include my infantry at VCs rule and new mech infantry units aren’t we kind of double counting for those units. Maybe we don’t need new mech infantry units that move 2. Maybe it’s good enough just to have them able to be placed on the front lines.

Ahh on the “piece” problem we can use the tank in 2nd edition as this mech infantry unit… MY vision would actually be a unit that represents a “half-track” or some truck with a gun…

“Maybe we don’t need new mech infantry units that move 2. Maybe it’s good enough just to have them able to be placed on the front lines.”

Hmmm what i see as the utility with the “mech infantry” or armored infantry is a piece to represent the “elite forces” such as SS panzer grenadiers or what typically we get in a standard US infantry division… it can also represent those Guard mechanized soviet divisions that fought it even can represent regular SS infantry… just something to reflect elite troops found in nearly every army.

attack 2 defense 3 move 2 cost 4?

[Imperious Leader]

Heres some ideas which invaribly have some aspect from Andersson’s ideas on this:

SS PANZERS
(Germany only)
Description: SS Panzers are specialized in repelling enemy advancement and make a considerable reinforcement to the German players defense. Use regular armor painted in black as SS Panzer units. S.S. Panzers cost 8 IPC’s and can only be built in Germany.

Cost: 8
Attack: 5
Defense: 5
Move: 2

Setup: Germany receives one unit for free, during the first round only. This unit is brought into play during the Mobilize New Units Phase on the respective powers´ turn.

MECHANIZED INFANTRY
Description: Mechanized Infantry represent elite infantry formations during the war. (Buy some halftrack pieces for these)

Cost: 4
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Move: 2

Setup: Each player receives two units for free, during the first round only. This unit is brought into play during the Mobilize New Units Phase on the respective powers´ turn.

Special Ability: Each of your tanks gives one matching infantry one additional movement allowance and an increased attack capability of 2 or less in the first cycle of combat only. Even if supported by artillery, their attack remains 2. The tank and the infantry unit must leave from the same territory.

SOVIET SHOCK TROOPS:
Description: Representing higher echelon infantry forces. (Paint some Soviet infantry heads a bright orange)

Cost: 6
Attack: 3
Defense: 4
Move: 2

Setup: The Soviet Union receives one unit for free, during the first round only. This unit is brought into play during the Mobilize New Units Phase on the respective powers´ turn.

HEAVY ARTILLERY:
Description: Representing higher caliber field Artillery pieces. (Use AA gun piece)

Cost: 6
Attack: 4
Defense: 2
Move: 1

Setup: Germany and Soviet Union each receive one unit for free, during the first round only. This unit is brought into play during the Mobilize New Units Phase on the respective powers´ turn.

Special Ability: They provide a +1 bonus to each matching attacking infantry like regular infantry or can perform a special attack as follows: It can attack from an adjacent space with a one free preemptive salvo and does not have to move in with other units. If it decides to move and attack then its hits are not preemptive.

HEAVY TANKS:
Description: Representing elite heavy and super heavy tank classes. (use painted 1/285 scale tanks for these)

Cost: 7
Attack: 4
Defense: 4
Move: 2

Setup: Germany and Soviet Union each receive one unit for free, during the first round only. This unit is brought into play during the Mobilize New Units Phase on the respective powers´ turn.

Special Ability: Each hit can target enemy armor units first before another unit is taken as a loss. (This includes Artillery and Mechanized Infantry as well as any armored types of units.

Fast Carriers

Description: Speedy ships with landing decks from which fighters can take off and land.

(This is a revised rule for aircraft carriers only, not a new unit)

Cost: 16
Attack: 1
Defense: 3
Move: 3
Hits: Takes 2 hits to sink

Carry Fighters: Just like the box rules.

Fighter Defense: Just like the box rules.

Light Carriers (Escort Carriers)
Cost: 10
Attack: 0
Defense: 1
Move: 2
Hits: Takes 1 hit to sink

Setup: Japan and UK each receive one Light carrier unit for free, during the first round only. These free cruiser units are brought into play during the Mobilize New Units Phase on the respective powers´ turn.

Carry Fighters: Just like the box rules.

Cruisers
Description: Multipurpose ships that can fire on incoming enemy planes and conduct shore bombardment. (One can use the battleships from A&A Classic as cruisers.)

Setup: Germany (in Baltic), Japan, UK, and USA (Pacific) each receive one cruiser unit for free, during the first round only. These free cruiser units are brought into play during the Mobilize New Units Phase on the respective powers´ turn.

Cost: 16
Attack: 3
Defense: 3 (Antiaircraft fire)
Move: 3
Hits: Takes 2 hits to sink

Special Abilities
Shoot Down Air Units: Whenever an air unit enters a sea zone containing an enemy cruiser, the cruiser fires during the Conduct Opening Fire step of combat. Roll one die for each attacking air unit (but only one cruiser in a sea zone can fire during the opening fire step, even if they are controlled by different powers). For every roll of 1, one attacking air unit is destroyed. This opening fire capability is for the first cycle of combat only and does not cancel the regular roll during the Defending Units Fire step.

Shore Bombardment: In an amphibious assault, your cruisers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Each cruiser fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A cruiser cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.

Destroyers
Description: Small, fast warships that hunt submarines.

(This is a revised rule for destroyers only, not a new unit)

Cost: 10
Attack: 2 (3 when an enemy submarine is present)
Defense: 2 (3 when an enemy submarine is present)
Move: 2 (3 when supported by a carrier)

Special Abilities
Supported by Carriers: When a destroyer move along with an aircraft carrier, the destroyer’s movement is increased to 3. This pairing is on a one-to-one basis. The destroyer and the aircraft carrier unit must leave from and end up in the same sea zone.

Submarine Disruption: A destroyer cancels the special abilities of submarines. Enemy submarines cannot move freely through a sea zone containing your destroyer. If you have destroyers in combat involing enemy submarines, they attack and defend on a 3. Any casualties of enemy submarines can return fire. Also, enemy submarines cannot submerge while your destroyer is present.

Shore Bombardment: In an amphibious assault, your destroyers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Each destroyer fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.

Battleships
Description: Powerful and nearly indestructible monarchs of the sea.

(This is a revised rule for battleships only, not a new unit)

Cost: 20
Attack: 4
Defense: 4
Move: 2

Special Abilities: All attacks on other naval ships are conducted with preemptive salvos to represent longer-range gunnery. Every combat round they attack in a similar manner. Otherwise they conduct themselves the same as LHTR.

Naval Fighters
Description: Representing carrier based torpedo-bombers and dive-bombers. ( use 1/600 scale planes for these)

Cost: 8
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Move: 2

Setup: Japan and USA each receive 2 naval fighters free, during the first round only. These are brought into play during the Mobilize New Units Phase on the respective powers´ turn.

Special Abilities
These units can only move from small islands or Carriers and can only attack other naval units. All attacks are preemptive rolls against defending warships prior to the start of the first combat round. After each successive round of combat this advantage is lost.

[Imperious Leader]

another idea that is for submarine combat:

Submarine Combat:
This form of combat is always performed separately from normal naval combat. During the active players phase, submarines can make attacks on naval units or economic attacks on an enemy’s convoy zone. When used against naval units they can be moved or simply activated from an enemy occupied sea zone and select a target of their choosing roll and hitting on a four or less. Attacking subs have a 1st shot “surprise attack” against naval units, unless defending Cruisers are present. Losses are applied immediately; so lost units do not get to shoot back. If any ships remain then a search roll may then be performed. Exception: After the first combat round each Cruiser or Destroyer class naval unit can “screen” out one ship of their choosing at a 1/1 basis so that the submarine hit goes against these units instead. Only when the “screening” ship(s) are sunk can the “protected” ship be targeted. Every defending Cruiser or Destroyer class unit is then assigned two rolls to perform a search of each submarine that is attacking with success on any roll of four or less. If they fail to locate the submarine, then the sub can then end combat and remain in the sea zone, or it can conduct another round of combat. If it tries to make a second attack the defending ships have an automatic search success (no roll is needed). They can all defend against the submarine(s) hitting at a 2 or less. This is known as Anti- Submarine Warfare (ASW). No other types of ships can perform ASW rolls. Land or Carrier based planes cannot be involved in Anti- Submarine Warfare (ASW) except USA and UK starting from turn 4.
  Each roll is now done separately until the submarine is sighted. All additional rolls left for these ships can then go against attacking the submarines again hitting on a two or less. On turn 6 the USA and UK player has sufficient sonar capability, which modifies a hit to any roll of three or less. If the submarine is not sighted then another round of combat occurs until either all ships are sunk or either side withdraws from further combat (subs can remain in the sea zone while either side can also retreat to another sea zones).To find a sub that has not attacked, you must roll a 1. Normally a sub can be located by rolling a 2 or less.

When the active player decides he wants to attack enemy submarines with ASW warfare, each Cruiser or Destroyer class ship  can each participate in a similar manner to above. No other types of ships can perform ASW. If these units fail to find the submarine, it simply remains in the sea zone. Each roll is now done separately until each submarine is sighted. Each plane then has two rolls each with a successful search result of four or less. Additional rolls are then applied as hits.To find a sub that has not attacked, you must roll a 1. Normally a sub can be located by rolling a 2 or less. Note: Bombers cannot actually attack enemy submarines but may be allocated to search for them.

Submarine economic raids
Submarines can also conduct attacks on a nation’s ability to wage war. These are done against enemy Convoy Zones or Industrial Complexes. If enemy units are eliminated or vacated from a Convoy Zone each Submarine can conduct economic attack with a roll of one D6 and applies the result as shown below. When conducting direct attacks on a nation’s economy each submarine adjacent to any coastal territory that contains an originally controlled Industrial Complex rolls one D6 and applies the effect as follows:

1-2 = 1 IPC loss
3-4 = 2 IPC loss
5-6=3 IPC loss

Note: if the convoy box contains units then they must be sunk or withdraw before an economic attack can occur. All loses are subtracted from that nations current economic totals.

The specified turns apply for a timescale that currently is not installed in revised… it may have to be considered. The main point is to seperate subs from normal naval combat… subs were not involved against each other in battle and battles in revised often use these units for fodder as if they are part of the battle… they must have a seperate track… This is a reformulated version of larry’s idea with some modifications for simplicity…

[theduke]

I have to reread your sub reals a few more times. I’m pretty sure I got most of it, but it seems more in depth than I think it needs to be. Nothing in the box rules is that in depth, and I think that’s because it’s geared more for a wider audience. We should shoot for the same IMHO.

I have some sub ideas but I’ll wait to post them until they are more finalized and I’ve gone over your ideas again.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes but the overall idea is subs are seperate from surface naval combat… if subs are present a seperate combat occurs before regular combat occurs… subs/ transports in his way are seperated from being fodder and involved with naval combat.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok whatever we can come up with that does the following:

1. demonstate the effectiveness of cruisers against naval air combat
2. correctly formulate accurate rules for ASW warfare
3. get the U-boat campaign an active part of the game
4. demonstate the superiority of battleships in surface combat ( long range guns destroying targets before they themselves get in range)
5. fix rules for transposts, subs and the interaction of air units over oceans
6. have some rule for sighting “surface ships” so players can have the “sink the bismarck” types of engagements. I hate the idea of automatic combat on sea… ships should have to locate the other/ and also evade should be possible for defenders.
7. on invasions too much bombarding is going on… if two infantry dies thats like 6 divisions being drstroyed just because of a destroyer.

[theduke]

I believe I already have some fixes for a few of those points you brought up. I’ll work on integrating them with the other points you broght up. First, I need help understanding what you mean and what you want to represent historically;

2. correctly formulate accurate rules for ASW warfare…… Exactly what forms of ASW need to/should be included?

3. fix rules for transposts, subs and the interaction of air units over oceans… Specifically, what needs to be fixed? Just that subs and transports don’t participate in surface combat? Should we have it so those units don’t participate at all? Specifically, how should fighters/bombers interact with naval units? How strong should fighters be… as strong as destroyers?

Should we have it fighter pieces don’t land on carrier pieces? Instead we have carrier piece represents the carrier and fighters… that way we don’t have fighters constantly leaving the carrier, going on land and back again… The fighter piece would represent land based fighters that cannot particpate in naval combat? Should fighter units also represent dive bombers so they can attack land units or have it so fighter units can only attack other air units and can’t hit ground troops? Should the bomber unit represent area bombers (larger bombers than dive bombers)?

How whould you change this? Unit on the board and what that unit represents (the unit=a model to repreent the following real units):

carrier unit= carrier+dive bombers+torpedo bombers (if only bombers represented then carrier units can’t attack air units. Include fighter planes in the carrier unit description so carrier can hit air units?)

destroyer unit= destroyers+frigates+cruisers?

fighter unit= land based fighters only? Include land based dive bombers too or have these go into the bomber unit? Should fighter units be able to hit naval units?

bomber unit= area bombers only? Include dive bombers so as to hit specific units?

[theduke]

I’m still in the process of comming up with some naval rules. I think you’ll be impressed with them. While I was thinking of the problem I came up with yet another question that I want you to answer… why can’t transports be involved in surface combat? Weren’t transports sailing with the rest of the fleet and thus could also be attacked?

[Imperious Leader]

I reply to the easy question first:

I’m still in the process of comming up with some naval rules. I think you’ll be impressed with them. While I was thinking of the problem I came up with yet another question that I want you to answer… why can’t transports be involved in surface combat? Weren’t transports sailing with the rest of the fleet and thus could also be attacked?

Transports sailed seperately in convoys to ferry materials across oceans and were protected by small naval units such as destroyer or destroyer escorts…When a “battlefleet sailed” to conduct a direct attack on another enemy surface fleet this battles goal was to sink the opposing fleet and “those poor little transports” had no place in such a mission. However, since transports are “doubled” as landing craft (LST) and can be used as an invasion force with fully loaded troops… then the value of their protection by larger class vessels should accompany them only to the drop off point…
    In terms of any sence of realism, a group of trannies that have no supporting vessels should be able to be destroyed by only one destroyer ( representing a group of 30 such vessels)… perhaps against subs they should have a defense of “one”, but their is not way in hell say a battleship should be able to take a hit from them… Thats another reason why they and subs should be a seperate combat situation… Having a fleet of unloaded trannies taking your enemies battleship hits instead of what the battleship is shooting at ( another battleship or cruiser probably) makes no sence IMO.

Perhaps one solution is to basically “pair” off each ship with another in a sort of duel once one of these ships is sunk, the victor can go after another ship…?

[Imperious Leader]

2. correctly formulate accurate rules for ASW warfare…… Exactly what forms of ASW need to/should be included?

3. fix rules for transposts, subs and the interaction of air units over oceans… Specifically, what needs to be fixed? Just that subs and transports don’t participate in surface combat? Should we have it so those units don’t participate at all? Specifically, how should fighters/bombers interact with naval units? How strong should fighters be… as strong as destroyers?

+++++++=

Should we have it fighter pieces don’t land on carrier pieces? Instead we have carrier piece represents the carrier and fighters… that way we don’t have fighters constantly leaving the carrier, going on land and back again… The fighter piece would represent land based fighters that cannot particpate in naval combat? Should fighter units also represent dive bombers so they can attack land units or have it so fighter units can only attack other air units and can’t hit ground troops? Should the bomber unit represent area bombers (larger bombers than dive bombers)?

+++++ my idea for that is too advanced…and those posted naval rules mainly have any value in practicallity in respect to the sub rules. I would like to see a cheaper plane that only fights at sea…so no land based planes on carriers… you just buy these cheap 2/2/8 planes… i really hate the idea that your carrier planes attack somebody on the oceans and fly to get into a land battle the next turn … yikes! WTF is that???

Take that naval rule concept with a grain of salt…what we have to create is something much more simple that will be playable and not to far from the tree of ideas.

How whould you change this? Unit on the board and what that unit represents (the unit=a model to repreent the following real units):

carrier unit= carrier+dive bombers+torpedo bombers (if only bombers represented then carrier units can’t attack air units. Include fighter planes in the carrier unit description so carrier can hit air units?)

++++++a carrier (CV) is only that… about 3-5 carriers in reality.

fighter unit= land based fighters only? yes, but perhaps we can use the 2nd edition piece for “naval fighters”

Include land based dive bombers too or have these go into the bomber unit?
++++ not sure…probably its too much complexity for this… we cant scare off the players!

I think only the following planes:

1. land based fighter
2. naval based planes
3. bombers

Should fighter units be able to hit naval units?
++++ land based planes should not be able to travel over water unless its a coastal territory, so yes and no

bomber unit= area bombers only? Include dive bombers so as to hit specific units?

I love to do this… what is your opinion?  perhaps grant land based planes a bonus if attacking ground units w/o air support?

[theduke]

See I was thinking of transport units not including convoys.

transport unit= military transports only?

I thought merchant marines would be represented separately. Military transports traveled with military escorts, esp. during amphibious assaults, which is pretty much the only thing transport units do anyway. That’s why I think it would be simpler and more realistic if we said transport units are just military transports.

I was thinking of having land based fighter units= fighters+dive bombers and allowing them to attack SZs immediately adjacent to the territory they came from (they can only flyover 1 SZ maybe?)

bomber unit= area bombers…… this means they don’t attack specific units.

do we need carrier based fighter/dive bomber units as separate units from carrier units? Can’t they all be represented by that carrier looking unit? I think this is the simplest way to do it cause it’s not like carrier based fighters are going to fly out 1 full SZ away from their respective carrier anyway. 1 SZ is like 1/3rd across the Atlantic, how realistic is it to have a carrier fighter to fly that far away. So if it’s the case that carriers and those carrier based fighters will never be in separate SZs, let’s just have them represented by that same unit. Opinions?

[Imperious Leader]

See I was thinking of transport units not including convoys.

transport unit= military transports only?

+++++++ yes but if we have any lend lease rules then they are really representing the following: 1) “liberty ships” and 2) landing barges

I thought merchant marines would be represented separately. Military transports traveled with military escorts, esp. during amphibious assaults, which is pretty much the only thing transport units do anyway. That’s why I think it would be simpler and more realistic if we said transport units are just military transports.

++++++WE could call them military transports… but thats not in the lexicon of military nomenclature…When they transport infantry to say UK… they are also bringing supplies to help england… “military transports” seems to limit the name, while just “transports” is more general…whats more important is what they do in the game.

Attack 0, defense 1, moves 2 costs 8?

I was thinking of having land based fighter units= fighters+dive bombers and allowing them to attack SZs immediately adjacent to the territory they came from (they can only flyover 1 SZ maybe?)

They (land based planes) should be able to attack only the SZ adjacent to a major land territory, all islands “inside” a SZ and naval battles should be settled with some cheaper naval fighter. yes

bomber unit= area bombers… this means they don’t attack specific units.

++++Right! they are saturation bombing level bombers… they dont swoop down and attack targeted enemy units like dive bombers and fighters do.

do we need carrier based fighter/dive bomber units as separate units from carrier units?

+++++++WE definatly need land based  and naval based planes as seperate… again i dont think people are ready for torpedo bombers and dive bombers but it would be nice…

Can’t they all be represented by that carrier looking unit?

+++++Yea sure… we can abstract them INTO THE CARRIERS as the airstrike capability… this is a good idea and is done in many other wargames… Will people go for this or do they want to have to buy seperate planes for this function? that is the question…

I think this is the simplest way to do it cause it’s not like carrier based fighters are going to fly out 1 full SZ away from their respective carrier anyway. 1 SZ is like 1/3rd across the Atlantic, how realistic is it to have a carrier fighter to fly that far away. So if it’s the case that carriers and those carrier based fighters will never be in separate SZs, let’s just have them represented by that same unit. Opinions?

Well under the original post… those carriers have a certain number of planes which are assigned different functions ( torpedo, dive, fighter (for CAP) )  we can use this idea. to represent a number of planes and i can create a player aid so you put the pieces into some box which effect how they interact… This would remove the need to have different pieces.

I think we need to have Mr. Andersson chime in soon with some ideas…

I think you should come up finishing your version for naval combat… and ill work on land combat…

Italy? what thoughts do you have on this?  Was thinking of this: ( note this is just a starting point)

Italy is a new nation ( the 6th player)

All German units located in Southern Europe, Balkans and Libya is now considered Italian and those territories can be used to purchase only Italian units (light Grey). That gives them a starting IPC value of 10. When choosing NA’s the Italian player can pick 4 NA’s that only affect these units. The Italian player plays following Germany’s turn. The territory of Germany itself has a new value of 20 so their income is not affected.

Lend lease payments
The US player receives 10 extra IPC per turn that can only be sent to either UK or the Soviet Union to represent lend-lease payments during the war. They can also be saved and sent on a latter turn. However, these must be carried on a transport and sent to sea-zone 4 or 34. Up to 10 points of lend lease can be carried on a single transport. This process can be intercepted be any axis player (who has units in range) and the transport (along with its lend lease cargo) can be sunk.

[theduke]

I’ll probably get to a point that I can post some stuff on the naval combat soon.

As for Italy…. IDEA #1:  I know having that third Axis nation is important but listen to this logic. Now that all Axis conduct their turn together and all Allies conduct their turn together, it really doesn’t matter that much what color the units are, right? What I mean is, what’s really the difference now between German units and Japanese units? Both attack the same and at the same time, defend the same and at the same time, move the same and at the same time, etc… Basically, I can’t see a practical difference anymore now that each side is moving together. I’m not advocating having all Axis units looking the same, just that how about we have Italian and German units look the same (i.e. how they are represented in the box rules)? Maybe we should just tell people grey units represent Germany and Italy.

I’ll just throw this idea out there. I’m not saying I necessary like it better than all Axis move and all Allies move (2 turns per round) but I think it’s worth throwing out there to think about… IDEA #2:  What if grey=Western Axis and orange=Japan and green=Western Allies and red=Russia. Both sides have only 2 nations and now it’s a 4 nation game instead of 5. The advantage of this is then we still get an even number on each side and shorten the game since 4 turns per round is less than 5. Also, now that we are back to only 1 color of units going at any 1 time, we can have the Western Allies always fight together but not with Russia (realistic) and Germany/Italy fight together but not with Japan (also realistic).

For realism, we could set up economic restrictions so UK doesn’t have full access to the entire US economy (that shouldn’t be too hard). Likewise, Italy won’t have full access to the entire German economy (unlike now). So economy would be separate (maybe not totally separate) but movement and pieces would be the same. It’s like having 6 nations but in a way only 4 so we get simplicity, fair numbers, sped up game and realism. I know it might be a radical idea but we might be on to something here. Is this idea worth pursuing further? Thoughts?

[Imperious Leader]

As for Italy…. IDEA #1:  I know having that third Axis nation is important but listen to this logic. Now that all Axis conduct their turn together and all Allies conduct their turn together, it really doesn’t matter that much what color the units are, right? What I mean is, what’s really the difference now between German units and Japanese units? Both attack the same and at the same time, defend the same and at the same time, move the same and at the same time, etc… Basically, I can’t see a practical difference anymore now that each side is moving together. I’m not advocating having all Axis units looking the same, just that how about we have Italian and German units look the same (i.e. how they are represented in the box rules)? Maybe we should just tell people grey units represent Germany and Italy.

++++++I can see what your saying, but i was thinking of adding something to having Italy:

1. giving the United States  true lend lease money that can goto england/ Russia  and be intercepted by German u-boat campaign… so we get some “Atlantic wolf pack” thing going… typically germany just abandons this idea in revised, because of her concerns with Russia… she does not have any money to fight UK on the sea.

2. Having Italy would be great for having a rookie player who may not know how to play to well… they would have limited resources to “screw the game up”  but at least they would have their own NA’s… They would have to help germany to win…Another idea was to even out the players in 2 teams of 3 players each.

3. as you know the total income that germany gets in increased the same value as the allies receive in lend lease… so germany does not lose any money and Italy is free to come outside the shadow of her larger partner…

4. Id like to see Italy in the game because it has not been tried yet with revised (board game version)… of course they have the “pact of steel” scenario over at tripleA for Italy as a new nation.

I’ll just throw this idea out there. I’m not saying I necessary like it better than all Axis move and all Allies move (2 turns per round) but I think it’s worth throwing out there to think about… IDEA #2:  What if grey=Western Axis and orange=Japan and green=Western Allies and red=Russia. Both sides have only 2 nations and now it’s a 4 nation game instead of 5. The advantage of this is then we still get an even number on each side and shorten the game since 4 turns per round is less than 5. Also, now that we are back to only 1 color of units going at any 1 time, we can have the Western Allies always fight together but not with Russia (realistic) and Germany/Italy fight together but not with Japan (also realistic).

++++++++i like this idea to separate Russia from the allies, because they didn’t really coordinate their military campaign with the allies, (rather the allies followed the Soviet lead with their own plans) … This was the case at Salerno, Italy was invaded just a week after Kursk started…I think your plan can work…but what is the disadvantage with having them all take their turns together?  Moving a 5 turn game into a 4 turn game really does not save time? Having Japan and germany move at the same time but not conduct attacks together would be included, so since they cant attack together, then it does not matter that they move together, which historically they did not coordinate ideas… so moving together in this case would not run against history.  THe only idea behind the all allies all axis move was to save lots of time…I have played these games and it really cuts off the fat… I think perhaps this may work:

1. germany italy
2. Russia, Japan
3. UK and USA, China

the reason is another problem is the game is won when usually Japan is half way into russia… which Japan decided not to attack russia and instead attack US… it was really an either or/type of thing… Japan had no interest in a russian campaign. She clearly was not making a pact with russia for any reason other than to free her against a general war with the united states… The victory conditions for the axis should not have to reflect the need for some major co-axis campaign against russia…
One reason is because it did not occur.

For realism, we could set up economic restrictions so UK doesn’t have full access to the entire US economy…

They should not have access unless its in the form of lend lease… they should definatly allocate spending seperately.