Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition)

[Imperious Leader]

Adlertag BTW is a very competent hard core a/a with excellent credentials. However he is very eccentric. I have known him for over 2 years. I hope he will help us out.

[Imperious Leader]

I’m thinking we should hold off on adding interceptors/escorts until phase 2. What do you guys think? I know eventually having them is important for realism but I don’t think we absolutely need them for phase 1 as long as we reduce the probability of AA hits to about 1/10, like Imp said.

…. yes true. but we can allow him to keep posting the ideas and we can come back to them when were ready. Still working on playing those VC.

[theduke]

I definitely agree. I didn’t mean to imply that we shouldn’t discuss interceptors/escorts, just asking if we should hold off introducing them until phase 2. All ideas are always open for discussion.

[Imperious Leader]

Land Combat Sequence Summary:

1. All attacking artillery units fire first preemptively on the first round and can conduct one of two forms of combat as follows: 1) artillery units can make a special attack that does not require that they move into the territory as follows: They may fire one “salvo” from a territory they reside and across it into an enemy territory for one round only. This attack is considered preemptive and the defender cannot roll in its defense. 2) They can decide to attack in conjunction with other attacking units and fight in multiple rounds of combat.However; only during the first combat round they fire in simultaneous fashion. Any ground forces hit as a result of the first artillery bombardment attack are now removed from play.

2. If the attacker has brought in air units, then they must engage defending air units separately each combat round until only one side has any air units left. This can be accomplished by one side destroying the enemy or retreating their own air units. During each round where ground combat continues and only one side has air units, those remaining air forces can attack ground forces with preemptive rolls each combat round. Land units cannot attack planes in any manner, except in territories that contain an Industrial Complex (this would be rolled before the start of the first combat round).All ground forces hit as a result of aerial attack are now removed from play and in this case the owner of those ground units has a choice of which ground units that may be taken as loses.

3. After each ground combat round the attacker followed by the defender rolls one D6 for each engaged unit trying to hit at or lower than its attack factor. Each hit caused by an Infantry unit can only be applied to an infantry unit, while armor unit hits must be applied to any defending armor units first before any other unit can be selected as causality. Armor units also include artillery types of units.

4. The defender then rolls for his defending units including those selected as causalities again trying to roll at or lower than each unit’s defense value. Second, each defending combat unit rolls for each unit using their defense value. Lastly, the defending player removes all hits first, followed by the attacking players’ casualties. The attacker must remove loses in the same manner as required by the defender.

5. The attacker followed by the defender can now make retreat declarations. All units engaged in combat have a voluntary retreat option. Full or partial retreats by either side are allowed after the first round of combat and only the currently engaged units’ can fire at each other. Retreating units do not get to fire as they retreat however; attacking units get one free “parting shot” roll on all defending units and they receive no return fire. The defender can declare to retreat a portion of his forces and leave a few units behind to “cover” the retreat. The retreating units do not get to fire, but the units left to fight still roll on defense. Additional casualties incurred are removed from those units that retreated. All units left to fight still roll on defense in the normal fashion.

6. If the defender is either destroyed or retreats, then the attacker automatically occupies the territory and a control marker is placed in the territory.

this is something that may help us.

[DasReich]

Great house rules Duke and Imp…

Maybe a little complicated for a non-hardcore WWII fanatic but still, these rules are way better than standard AA rules.

I have a simple suggestion for you: How about introducing the possibility of invading neutral countries?

Oh, and in the Blitzkrieg national advantage for the germans, when a fighter attacks with a tank, do both units attack on 4 or less?

GG

[theduke]

Keeping the ideas simple is in the forefront in terms of importance. The latter phases of our modifications will get slightly more complex, but only because they need to for us to do what we want to do with them. If you have any more new ideas or ideas on how to simplify what’s already been said, we’d appreciate the help.

IMO, the option of invading a neutral territory is a must, but since it’s not absolutely needed to have a good game we’ll probably end up incorporating it in phase 2. I never liked the 3 IPC penalty in the original game. I was always fond of the idea of the nearest opponent automatically placing free units of his to defend it.

[Imperious Leader]

yes quite right thats a phase 2 thing. Neutrals will have the possibility of going to either the allies or axis side, will have their own forces and IPC values. It is accurate and historical and it can be made simple.

[theduke]

Hey Imp, did you ever get down to analyzing those sub combat rules I posted? I’m looking forward to your feedback.

[Imperious Leader]

I know man… i need more time… Its easy to reply to my usual posts. What you offer requires me to spend like a few hours to analyze. I want to address you with a full understanding. Also im finishing 2 other games ( War in Europe and Rising Sun: The War with Imperial Japan). That is also why i have taken rather a back seat to our project. AS soon as i can devote more time… I promise ill get everything done.

[DasReich]

You guys have thought about approaching Avalon Hill to make your rules an official expansion set for Revised? I mean, it would be quit useful to buy all the kit (Rulebook, Tiger tanks, cruisers, halftrack etc…) in a single buy… Moreover, the units would be butiful and ACCURATE! :-D

[Imperious Leader]

Well we allready have the map redone at twice the size. I want this project to be free to everyone. Its a gift from us who create it to every axis and allies fan. You can see pictures under house or varient rules section or goto my site. I really was in the same position about 4 years ago and wanted a larger map, so i learned how to use different programs and i can safety say that i can do anything with respect to artwork for any game. I now apply these skills for others and in this case everything will be produced to a degree that it will actually exceed the original quality of the game. I did say exceed… The ruleset, player aids and map will all be made avalible free very soon.

[DasReich]

That’s great. I can hardly wait to play with the new rules. Though a little more complex than the box rules, they put so much more realism in the game that it’s definitely worth a shot. Just the sub detection roll is a superb idea, how come nobody thought about it earlier? what about SS panzers, the new national advantages and new units like the cruisers?

I understand that you want to make this a gift to every AA fan in the world and I salute your intentions. But don’t you think it would be easier for everyone to buy your expansion as an official Avalon Hill expansion pack?

Why?

Let’s say I want Halftracks, Russian Shock troops, SS panzers, Cruisers, Heavy artillery scale units…Where do I get them?

As a customer, I dont care paying 20 bucks to buy such a great expansion pack with a new bigger map instead of passing countless hours on the web trying to find scale pieces suitable for the game…

[theduke]

OK, here I go…. how about these possible rules for commerce raiding:

During every player’s collect income phase, the player counts up all the IPCs under his control (just like before), but before he actually collects the IPCs each opponent first gets to conduct commerce raiding to reduce that IPC count (Remember that collect income phase occurs before combat move phase).

When commerce raiding is performed: Commerce raiding is performed during any given player’s collect income phase when either an enemy naval unit is located in a SZ bordering an IC owned by that player and/or when an enemy fighter is located in a territory which borders one of those SZs. Enemy fighters located on a CV are considered naval units in that SZ. Enemy fighters located on a territory bordering more than one SZ which borders an enemy IC can only conduct commerce raiding on 1 of the SZs (the owner of the fighter chooses which SZ). An example of this is German fighters in W. Europe raiding either SZ 6 or 7.

How commerce raiding is performed: Every enemy naval unit/ fighter satisfying the above qualifications rolls a die to determine the number of IPCs that the opponent must surrender back to the bank. The number of IPCs surrendered is equal to the number rolled, however, units only do damage on rolls that would be considered a hit during combat when they are the attacking. For example, BBs will only do 1-4 IPCs of damage when they roll that respective number. Fighters will only do 1-3 IPCs of damage when they roll that respective number. Submarines conducting commerce raiding roll 3 dice instead of just 1.

Limits on commerce raiding: Only 1 roll from a surface naval unit/ fighter (either CV or land based) per SZ per turn may be counted when calculating the reduced number of IPCs. The 1 roll that is used is the roll that does the greatest amount of damage. (This rule is used to encourage players not to clump all surface units/ fighters in only 1 SZ bordering an enemy IC).

Notice that submarines, in addition to rolling 3 dice each instead of just 1, also aren’t grouped into the same limitation above because they aren’t surface naval units. Instead, only the best 3 rolls from subs may be counted per SZ per turn. This means that the total IPCs surrendered per SZ is the sum of 4 Numbers… the single best roll from surface/fighter units and the 3 best rolls from sub/s.

Maximum loss for commerce raiding: The maximum number of IPCs that can be surrendered to the bank during commerce raiding for each IC is equal to the maximum amount of IPC output of the IC less the number of ‘connected IPCs’ to that IC. More than 1 IC may be raided during the same collect income phase.

The maximum amount of IPC output of an IC is either 4 times the IPC value of that territory or the total number of IPCs collected by that nation for that turn, whichever is smaller.

Remember the definition of a connected territory, pertaining to infantry placement limits? Same definition here. A territory is connected only when there is a continuous line of friendly territories separating the territories of interest.

Here are a couple of examples: Let’s say UK counts up 30 IPCs before raiding. The maximum that can be raided from UK territory is 30 (since 30 is less than 4 times the IPC value of 8 ) minus 8 (since no other territories are connected to the island of UK). This is 30-8=22.

Now let’s do E. Canada with UK cashing out at 30 again. 12 (just 4*3) - 4 (E. Canada is connected to W. Canada 3+1=4… don’t count up US territory IPCs when calculating total connected IPCs for UK). 12 - 4 = 8.

Now India (still cashed out at 30) and only UK territory taken so far is Egypt. 12 - 5 (3 for India + 1 for Persia + 1 for Trans-Jordan)= 7.

You get the point. That’s all the rules to it. It’s not that much considering all the realism it incorporates into it. In case you’re wondering why the equation (total IPC output from IC) - (total connected IPCs) = (total amount that can be commerce raided) here’s the reasoning:

(total IPC output from IC):
Remember from IC purchase limitations per turn that no more than 4 times the IPC value of the territory may be placed at an IC per turn. This is where the first term comes from. Also, since no one can spend more IPCs than they have, I included the part about “or the total IPC count for the nation”.

(total connected IPCs):
The more the nation is connected to other friendly nations the less it is dependent on naval shipping to bring in supplies. This makes it so commerce raiding is more effective against the island of UK or Japan and less effective against Russia and Germany.

[theduke]

That’s great. I can hardly wait to play with the new rules. Though a little more complex than the box rules, they put so much more realism in the game that it’s definitely worth a shot. Just the sub detection roll is a superb idea, how come nobody thought about it earlier? what about SS panzers, the new national advantages and new units like the cruisers?

I’m really excited about these new rules. After running all my calculations on how these rules play out with the rest of the out of box rules I can’t see any problems that commonly creep up with many other house rules out there. I can’t see how this won’t be a smash-hit, unless people don’t even give it a chance because it might be so much at first to absorb. That’s why we really need these phases. If we put all the rules in 1 batch, it would be too long and no one would start using them. I’m sure after the 1st phase of rules people will be thirsty for more. It may take some time to spread the word out though.

My major concern right now is simplifying the way the rules are presented. I think I can make them appear simpler without actually changing the rules around that much.

Let me know what you guys think of the commerce raiding rules. When we feel like we’re done with those, we can move onto some slight tech changes and then hopefully do some serious playtesting.

If we find that the Axis are too powerful, I have a pretty good lend-lease rule to add…. US automatically gets 10 extra IPCs a turn but the catch is that they have to allocate it out to UK/Russia to be used on their next turns and it can be commerce raided as well.

If instead, we find that Allies are too powerful, then we can make commerce raiding even more powerful than it already is.

[Imperious Leader]

IM taking your idea to the beach to study…

I think the AA gun thing needs some “max” because the more planes that fly over the more likely a hit will occur. The 10% rule is the average hits obtained on planes flying back and forth over the course of the war from flak battleries. Even if its 10% chance each event (turn) that makes it greater because if you fly over and SBR say like 6 turns out of the game. that 10% each turn will turn into loses greater than 10 % over the course of the war. Secondly, Bombers and fighters should be rolled seperately, because the defender should not get to choose his loses… they should be random.

[theduke]

Very interesting post Imp. You’ve brought up some points about flak that I wanted to talk about because I don’t know as much as I probably should about it.

Question 1. I can easily see why the probability of shooting down a fighter doesn’t double when the number of attacking fighters doubles, but at the same time doesn’t the probability go up, and thus shouldn’t be fixed at, say, 10%? More fighters mean more targets, and a greater surface area being covered in the sky. It’s more likely (not double though) to hit a fighter when there are double the number of fighters. This is why I don’t go for a fixed 10% probability of hitting fighters no matter how many there are.

I’m up for adding the rule that the total number of air units that can be shot down per combat move phase and per non-combat move phase in a certain territory is equal to the number of AA guns in the territory. Opinions?

Question 2. If loses are randomly either bombers or fighters, then what’s really the point of escorts other than firing on interceptors? The escorts aren’t protecting the bombers if losses are random, they are just counter-attacking the SBR defense. Shouldn’t escorts screen out flak and interceptors from the bombers and thus be more likely to be hit?

I think it’s just simpler to say attacker chooses his own loses. It’s nice and neat and as easy as it gets. I suppose we could discuss saying that interceptors don’t choose their target (hits fighters first) but flak chooses it’s own targets (hits bombers first). This would make it about the right odds of somewhere between random and only fighters first. I don’t know how realistic it is since fighters fly below bombers as well as ahead of them to screen them from both flak and interceptors, but let’s discuss it. I think either way is fine by me.

I still don’t think we should include escorts and interceptors for phase 1. Not worth the added confusion. Opinions?

[theduke]

There are many ways we can make commerce raiding more powerful. One way is to instead limit the damage to 4 IPCs per SZ per turn for surface fleet/fighters and 4 IPCs per SZ per turn for subs. Another way which would be even more powerful would be to have no limits per SZ per turn, but if you do this then Germany would just probably hang out in SZ 6 and not move further into the middle of the Atlantic (not realistic). Opinions? Do you like the original idea or any other ideas or any ideas of your own? It’s really hard to find a good compromise here between simulating reality and simplicity while being just right in terms of effectiveness. Do you think these rules are too complicated? Any ideas for simpler rules with the same effectiveness and reality?

[Imperious Leader]

Question 1. I can easily see why the probability of shooting down a fighter doesn’t double when the number of attacking fighters doubles, but at the same time doesn’t the probability go up, and thus shouldn’t be fixed at, say, 10%? More fighters mean more targets, and a greater surface area being covered in the sky. It’s more likely (not double though) to hit a fighter when there are double the number of fighters. This is why I don’t go for a fixed 10% probability of hitting fighters no matter how many there are.

I’m up for adding the rule that the total number of air units that can be shot down per combat move phase and per non-combat move phase in a certain territory is equal to the number of AA guns in the territory. Opinions?

Question 2. If loses are randomly either bombers or fighters, then what’s really the point of escorts other than firing on interceptors? The escorts aren’t protecting the bombers if losses are random, they are just counter-attacking the SBR defense. Shouldn’t escorts screen out flak and interceptors from the bombers and thus be more likely to be hit?

I think it’s just simpler to say attacker chooses his own loses. It’s nice and neat and as easy as it gets. I suppose we could discuss saying that interceptors don’t choose their target (hits fighters first) but flak chooses it’s own targets (hits bombers first). This would make it about the right odds of somewhere between random and only fighters first. I don’t know how realistic it is since fighters fly below bombers as well as ahead of them to screen them from both flak and interceptors, but let’s discuss it. I think either way is fine by me.

I still don’t think we should include escorts and interceptors for phase 1. Not worth the added confusion. Opinions?

ON question #1 I think to solve the problem is only one roll per event per territory. So its better to send in more planes because you get more value on your return on SBR investment. If you get multiple rolls against say 5 planes. Its 10% per, but the chance of hitting something is now much greater than 10% because your “trying” the roll more than once. I would not say its 50% but if close. The math for this is similar to counting anticipated hits in combat. Example: 3 infantry will have a 50% chance of hitting once 1+1+1=3/6 or 50%.

The defender should get some ability to send planes to perform a simple DAS mission from adjacent territories. That would be realistic because say UK and Germany had fighter command which intercepted incoming enemy planes before they did the SBR. That would be the compensation for somewhat limited Flak batteries. The AA gun is way too powerful. It should not even be a unit. The “flak” idea can be installed in any territory with a IC.

On question #2 : Under the idea of having one roll anyway i dont think is matters at this point. The original idea was level bombers are flying at a higher altitude, while escorts are flying at a lower altitude (relatively) and these planes swoop down to engage defending fighters that are attempting to engage the bombers. If the sky is cleared on escorts then the fighter defense can start “targeting” the bombers, because they are now not being chased around the sky spending fuel in a dogfight. THe difference with Flak batteries is its totally random, so its not fair to allow the owner of the planes taking hits from AA gun the CHOICE on what to lose. It must remain  random, because the idea is a blanket of firepower shot in the sky. We have no idea at this distance what were are hitting.

[Imperious Leader]

OK Now on with the commerce ideas…

1. Math Cutback: the idea of “multiply by 4, minus the value and any adjacent territory” is very unique, but to save math… why not multiply by 3 and subtract adjacent territory. IN the example with UK which is 84=32 ( 30 cap) , so 30-8=22.  The equation is now 83=24. IN the India example its 9-2=7 I feel its simple to keep the math not too time consuming for playability. The results are basically the same. Otherwise its very good idea.

2. Limitations of History: Germany and the Soviet Union had very limited sea faring trade. Sweden was Hitlers only real trading partner and that was very limited value to the German economy. I don’t like the idea of the entire allied fleet moving into the Baltic in the middle game and blasting the German economy. In the first case allied ships should not be allowed into the Baltic unless the allies own Norway, Sweden, and Germany.The Axis ships in the Mediterranean should not be able to leave the Mediterranean unless they own Gibrater and or the Suez. That should be compensation. However, now the allies will kill German economy using the Italian complex… so in general the idea has some flaws.

3. Subs are getting too much value. A BB thats costing 20 can only claim up to 4 IPC, while a cheap sub gets 3 rolls… This will kill naval buys.

Solutions:

1. Subs get only one roll, but it counts as double? and only one sub per Zone as per the other rule you have on surface/ air units

2. The commerce raiding rules only pertain to UK, Japan, and USA and not Italy, Germany and Soviets.

Again your idea is very good because it solves the problem of Island vs. Land locked nations easily, but it also opens other problems.

[Guerrilla Guy]

@DasReich:

Oh, and in the Blitzkrieg national advantage for the germans, when a fighter attacks with a tank, do both units attack on 4 or less?

GG

uh Das Reich that is my name… not a statement… 8-)