Axis & Allies 1943 "Deep War"

Witt

To mimic Japan’s economic and supply problems, I have placed an Allied Sub of 3 of the DEI (not Celebes) and off Malaya. Japan only has one DD that can reach. Its small Cruiser led fleet off New Britain can’t get away from the Americans, so will be sunk on US1.

Italy cannot be captured on R1, but ought to fall on 2 or 3. The Germans have 3 Mech units in Italy, but should move then to bolster the Eastern Front. The Med is something, to which I have much thought. I am very interested in that theatre, being Italian. I want to get it right.

The TUV difference I wanted was 600. It remains to see if I got that figure right.
I want a quick game and although I have not stipulated the Axis victory conditions, they can be agreed afterwards. As the Axis player, I would be happy to have survived a certain number of rounds and put up a good defence. (The 2 players could decide if this had happened.)

Black_Elk

I rather like that idea Baron mentioned, about a sizable bonus to Germany’s starting income.

In 1943 the entire German economy was subordinated to armaments production under Speer. The boost was pretty dramatic, when compared to output for the prior 3 years of the war. Just churning out tanks, and u-boats, and fighters.

Also, I believe it was around this same time that the Germans started relocating their factories underground and farther to the east. So perhaps you could include an additional Minor factory in Poland? This would give G a bit more reach vs the Soviets, and a stronger defensive position during the endgame for their VC at Warsaw.

For technology, you could perhaps give Axis 1 free roll for a tech breakthrough each round? Or maybe Increased Factory production for Germany right from the outset? I don’t know how many players really bother with Tech in normal G40 games, but seems like it should play some sort of expanded role in game focusing on 1943 and later.

CWO Marc

@Black_Elk:

Also, I believe it was around this same time that the Germans started relocating their factories underground and farther to the east.

I don’t know much about this topic, but the only underground German factory complex I’m aware of is the Mittelwerk facility where slave workers assembled V2 rockets. It was dug into a mountain somewhere in Germany, as I recall.

I recently re-watched the low-budget movie “Tonight We Raid Calais” (made around 1943, I think) which – even though it wasn’t trying to be funny – featured a hilariously improbable plot device related to German industrial production. The Germans are manufacturing 88mm shells in a valley located close to a fictitious occupied French town. Both the Germans and the Allies consider these shells to be of vital strategic importance: early in the film, a British officer helpfully explains that the Germans need the 88s to defeat the new American tanks that have appeared in North Africa (an apparent reference to the Sherman, whose thin armour was hardly as formidable as this line of dialogue implies). Anyway, to make sure that the Allies won’t have an easy time bombing this vital factory, the Germans come up with the clever scheme of building FIVE complete factories in the valley: one real factory and four fake ones. The rationale is presumably that if the Allies launch a bombing raid against one of the factories (which is naturally understood to mean dropping 100% of their bombs on the selected target, and having 100% of those bombs hit the right building and miss all the other ones), they’ll only have a 20% chance of hitting the real factory. Clever, n’est-ce pas? To further ensure the security of this brilliant deception plan, the Germans – who are using conscripted French workers to produce the shells – take the precaution of driving each truckload of workers through a long dark underground tunnel at the beginning and end of every shift, so that none of the Frenchmen (who, the Germans fear, might be passing information to the Resistance) know which building they’re working in. Everyone in the film – the Germans, the French and the British – take this whole concept so seriously that its implausibility is easy to overlook.

Black_Elk

Haha sounds like an Axis and Allies strategy I’ve encountered before, like " OK I’ll build 4, that way if 3 get blown up, at least I’ll still have one left!"
:-D

The movie has a great cover!

Oh yeah that’s the one I was thinking of, at Nordhausen, where the rocket craziness went down! Probably where I’m getting the images in my mind. I’d guess it had more to do with reinforcing or camoflauging structures for the most part, rather than actually burying them, though I know there were plans in the East to actually go underground towards the end of the war. How successful they were at it I can’t recall. Just looked up something on Project Reise, in Poland or Silesia or somewhere thereabouts, but looks like they never actually pulled it off before the Soviets arrived on the doorstep!

There was definitely a move to relocate production to get away from Allied bombs. It’s hard to get inside the head of crazy Nazi’s, but the slave labor component probably played a role in decisions to relocate, as the Allies started gaining ground in the West. I think after Stalingrad is when that really started to kick in, as they made up for their labor shortages with slaves, like genuine bastards. I think the late war production in the East was more oriented towards chemical weapons, Buna Rubber, aviation science, “super weapons” and the like, all the horrific stuff they were working on at those death camps, more than like regular 88s and tanks and such, but I guess it could still count towards the totals, if you wanted to give the Germans a 1943 IPC boost up, compared to the 1940 board.

For the Rocket stuff at least, I know they bounced out of the testing grounds at Peenemunde in the Baltic, round about 1943, after Hydra bombed em up proper, which is when the decision was made to move operations into the forest or bury it in mines in the Harz instead.

This would be a gamey rationale to be sure, but one that might also be workable, if you wanted to give the German’s another minor factory in Poland or a tech boost to work with as a way of balancing the forces by sides.

Frederick II

Maybe free tech should go to Germany because Japan didn’t do much tech and japanese inf on islands should defend on 3 or less.

There should be a rule that if Rome is captured by the allies then Italy is out of the war since historically at that point of the war they wanted to get out of it and if Germany captures original Italian territory they control it instead of liberating it even Rome.

Young Grasshopper

If the Axis are in such a tough spot in 1943, I would consider removing Italy altogether and replace any Italian units that would have been in the setup with German units.

Witt

YG: that idea has made me want to change Â Italy. Thanks.

If Rome is captured, any other Italian territory inmediately becomes German, if it has at least one German Ground Conbat unit in it. Of course, Germany can’t collect the income until it’s turn. The Italian Ground Â units in these territories become German too. All Air units are removed, except one, which becomes German.
If there are no German units in an Italian territory, these units all disappear (are removed).
Any fleet is always removed.
That seems historical.

Black_Elk

Taking Italy out of play might make the game pace feel rather lopsided, with only 1 Axis nation for each side of the board.

If taking Italy out of the equation, then maybe just collapse the whole turn order into a simple 5 man game. Just on the huge map.

China under US control can be fun.

Or if you want to keep all the Allied nations, at least give China a second flying tiger or something to work with haha. I mean if going through the trouble to design a scenario from the ground up, why not.
:-D

Black_Elk

I think as soon as you’re willing to alter the starting unit set up for a whole new start date, you could probably make UK/UK Pacific/Anzac/France into a single large nation, with much higher income, but with a lot less starting units.

China under US control would give that Player/Nation more cash to work with and something to do from the first round, again you could balance out this increase, with the starting units.

A 5 man is workable, it would play much faster, and it’d be a lot fewer total NO’s to draft/track.

For a map this complex, at least the set up cards could read easier.

Each nation would have more total money, but less total starting units. I think that’s probably the best way to go into it.

Even more streamlined than Global 1942 (which didn’t scale back the number of player nations all that much, beyond eliminating France). Global 1943 on the other hand could be like a supped up version of the 1942.2 board, just with the new units and bases and such. I think a mod like that would be popular, if it was done well.

Black_Elk

Ps. I did a quick draft scenario for Europe and Asia, re-assigning ownership to give a sense of how the 5 man might look. Images below…

Basically you could “zero out” all the units, and just start with the desired territory distribution. Maybe something along those lines…

Then after ownership is settled for the basic date, figure out what the starting incomes would be for the 5 Nations involved, and build out your starting unit set-up/balance around those income conditions. I think the overall Victory/Win should be Allied initiative, instead of the other way round like it is in 1940 (ie. Here the Allies are the ones who need to recover VCs from the Axis!)

The images below just show some quick screens of possible Europe/Asia possessions, broken down into just the 5 man, but I like the aesthetic. It reminds me of Classic, or 1942.2, but with technology! A lot more money! and a lot more territory to fight over! With an expanded unit roster and production scheme. Could be cool, if the starting unit set up was worthwhile.

I’d take the opportunity to try some novel things, like giving the Russians a real air force and a mini navy somewhere. America could be a much more interesting player in 1943, if they had control of more starting territories. Maybe drop a few more minor factories or bases here and there, to set up anchor points for the fighting. Build the starting forces around the concept of a fast paced game where puchasing is the main driver. A game where the Allies especially, have more production and much more income, but fewer starting forces, and where Axis have more starting forces but less total cash. Make it a real race game, instead of one where Axis can just camp on their income advantage over time to clinch it. Here it’d be the Allies that had the economic edge again.
:-D

Could set things such that Sicily happens in the first round. Plus a Russian push back on the Eastern front, to roll up whatever line Germany holds at the outset. The Pacific would still likely need an option for Japan to make a break out before America totally dominates them, just to keep the gameplay interesting, but you could scale this to be less dramatic than the 1940 game. Maybe sneak a nod to Mao in there too. Things like that to distinguish the scenario from Global 1940 or 1942 haha.

Black_Elk

Pps. In case anyone is curious, using the scheme I suggested (combining UK, UK Pacific, Anzac and France into a single player) gives the British Empire a pretty reasonable starting income/production amount. If we gave starting possession of North Africa to USA, and starting possession of Persia and Iraq to UK, that would be a total of around 55 ipcs to UK.

Totally workable in my view, since the British Empire was the largest in world history. And the Allies would then be able to build bases on all that Free French territory in Africa (something which they can’t do in 1940, unless the Axis take it over first.) I think this would make the UK a much more interesting power to play.So depending on how you set things up with starting National Objectives, you could have a basic starting income for UK of around 60 ipcs. That’s a lot of money, they should have a lot fewer starting units, but the factory spread means they could pick a focus for their theater and build out how they like. So again that’s about 60 ipcs for UK as a starting point.

Now Germany, including the European Italian territories and a few more Territories on the Eastern Front would be around 65 ipcs starting income. With starting NOs you bring this up to around 70 or 75 ipcs at the start.

USA, including North Africa and China, Brazil etc. would be at around 70 to start, with NO’s you could bring this up to around 80 ipcs or so.

Japan, depending on how you want to handle a few starting territories (like Celebes or Burma) could be around 50 ipcs, with Nos you could bring that up a little bit.

Russia would have less starting territories, meaning their baseline would be somewhere in the mid 20s. This is very low relative to the other players. So my suggestion would be to give them stronger NOs to put that amount at least into the mid 30s on starting Income, and then give them a much stronger starting unit force. For example, right now they start with a paltry 3 aircraft total! This should be doubled at the very least!

Give the Russians at least a half dozen aircraft so they can play like a normal nation. My suggestion would be 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, and 1 strategic bomber.

You could also give the Russian more starting Armor, again at least double the numbers. These heavy hitters (the extra tanks and aircraft) could be located behind the Urals, so they have to move out. But basically, give the Soviets enough starting power to compensate for their lack of starting cash, and then give them the option to expand. Basically the reverse of the 1940 game.

One more time, just ballparking it, we should shoot for a starting income breakdown something like this…

Russia: 30s
Germany: 70s
UK: 60s
Japan: 50s
USA: 80s

Axis 120
Allies 170

With a 50 ipc swing, in contested areas of the game map. This could be easily managed with National Objectives at around +10 or +15 ipcs, tweaked to find a good starting income balance.

I’d shoot to have a total of 300 ipcs in play at any given time, once NOs are factored in. Again I believe this is workable, it’s essentially double the scale of the 1942.2 game, just like the map scale is basically doubled!

Remember that All Axis and Allies games (regardless of their start date) have always required an ahistorical Japanese expansion to be playable on balance, so it’s definitely possible to set this up such that the two sides achieve a rough income parity by sides after a few rounds. The difference in starting income you just make up in the starting forces, in this case with a lot more Axis units at the outset.

I think it could be done. And I think it would be fun.

I don’t think we need another Global 1940/42 type game, with like 10 player nations, and a super complicated turn order with a pain in the ass set up. If people want to play a game like that then they’ll just play the normal Global game!

If going through the trouble of making a whole new 1943 scenario, we should cater it to the demographic that wants a game pace more like the original 5 man A&A games, just featuring a larger Global map, with more money, more units and more fun. I think this could be a real opportunity to correct some of the issues that have long plagued the game, especially with regard to how the Soviet Union has been traditionally set up. We could fix the Russians here and make them fun to play, and shift the game from one where Axis always have to meet in the middle to win, to one where Axis just have to hold their starting territories to win, and its the Allies who are under pressure to move the ball forward. I think it would be cool. I’d play a game like that for sure. Especially if it was built out in a collaborative way and had the backing of the A&A.org community.

Global 1942 was not really released that way. It’s design process from the ground up didn’t take input from the community, it was released more as a tournament expedient, pre-built. In my view the Global 1942 scenario didn’t gather the sort of strength and popularity that it might have gained otherwise for this reason. If it was designed and popularized more as a group effort, instead of being put out as a “ready made” more people might be playing it right now.

But 1943 could be different!

barney

Always nice to see a new scenario! Right on wittman!

Like your ideas as well Black Elk. Midnight Express uses certain techs at certain times for certain countries (man that’s a lot of certains) in his scenarios. I found it to be a lot of fun. IDK if you wanna go that far off the beaten path Mr wittman, but there are a lot of possibilities!

Followed your 41 game. Looking forward to how your 43 plays out.
A 5 nation global mid? game would be badass!

Witt

Thanks Barney. I am fascinated with the end half of the war and seeing Germany fight for its life, so am happy to experiment with 43.
Black Elk’s idea of 5 nations is not a bad starting point either.

Frederick II

wittmann, good idea on the italian rule. Here’s a quick thought if the allies capture rome the italian player (which is usually the German player) rolls a dice if they get a 3, 2, and 1 your rule takes place but if 6, 5, and 4 is rolled your rule doesn’t take place.

Black_Elk, why does it look like Germany controls Leningrad in your map? A 5 player is a good idea with Germany controlling Italy is fine because Hitler really bossed Mussolini around.

Witt

Thanks Frederick.
It always annoyed me that Italy can lose Rome and have no income, yet Germany, historically, annexed the industrial North of the country, installing a puppet government, and yet, in the game, does not keep the income.

Young Grasshopper

Yes… German money and units protecting the Italian territories would help the Axis in Europe, and a stronger Kamikaze dynamic would also help the Axis in the Pacific.

Black_Elk

Leningrad would have to be a shot call. It was totally encircled and under siege during this period, but the Germans bypassed the city itself. I’d say it’s easier to just give control of the territory to G. I guess the logic would be that city under siege full of starving people probably isn’t going to be cranking out tanks and such.

I’d let someone more familiar with the history help us to determine the exact German line we want to set up with territories on the eastern front. It’d probably be helpful to pick a general season rather than a month, since it gives more flexibility

Argothair

Lots of good ideas in this thread – this is shaping up to be a very interesting scenario. I am a little concerned that some of the goals Black_Elk is describing might conflict with each other.

On the one hand, if the Axis can reliably expand rapidly in the opening turns of 1943 by leveraging superior starting forces, then we have (a) a repeat of the strategic themes from the 1940 / 1941 setups, where the Axis also leverage superior starting units to expand rapidly, and (b) a big deviation from history – historically, 1943 was a year of rough parity, where it was not immediately clear who was going to expand or how far they would get.

On the other hand, if the Axis start out with 50 IPCs / turn less than the Allies, and the Allies, especially Russia, start out with more in the way of a navy / air force than they do in the 1940 or 1941 scenarios, then if the Axis don’t reliably and rapidly expand beyond their 1943 holdings, they are doomed.

I think I would prefer to see a scenario where the Axis begin the game with a mild economic advantage, but also with a mild deficit of troops. This would be both more unique (as compared to other A&A variants) and more accurate (as compared to history). Some places where the Axis could get more income without straining history too much include Tunisia, French West Africa (parts of which were Axis-controlled until very near the end of the war), Leningrad, Burma, central China, and new Guinea. The Axis could also have more national objectives (each of which is worth more on average) than the Allies.

Black_Elk

I take the point, but the way I see it, if we are willing to “zero” the board, and build out the starting forces entirely anew, then almost anything is possible.

For example, the rapid Axis expansion you mentioned on the 1940 board is not really what I was aiming for here. In 1940 this rapid expansion is probably just as much a consequence of the Turn order sequence, the type of starting units and “where exactly” these are located, as it is of the overall TUV on the board at the outset. In other words, in 1940, sure the Axis have more TUV, but importantly, that TUV is located on the border with the enemy ready to attack from the first round at advantage. And it’s the Axis who move first! Basically the Allies are designed to fold in the first round, and the unit set up supports this. But it’s possible, if we wanted, to design the scenario such that the Axis TUV (while still larger than Allies) is located in rather less advantageous positions. Similarly, the exact makeup of the starting forces, the ratio of heavy hitters like aircraft to infantry etc could be weighted more towards the infantry side of things, slow moving less potent units at the outset, so that the Axis have to build out their attack power over time. This would basically be the reverse of 1940, where Axis start with a huge heavy hitter advantage.

Essentially, my suggestion would be to design the first round such that it’s the Axis who absorb the initial onslaught, instead of being the ones who deliver it. No massive wipe outs of the entire Royal navy by Germany or Japan clear cutting across Asia. I said before that an ahistorical expansion pattern for Japan is basically a pre-requisite for A&A games, but that doesn’t mean they need to be thumping around like Godzilla all the way to India or Moscow as a matter of course, just for game balance. I think we could just as easily work things out so that the Victory conditions encourage a somewhat more reasonable expansion pattern for Axis, and one that is easier for the Allies to counter.

I’d be entirely open to exploring different alternatives to those base values I suggested above, if it produces a playable 5 man game on the global map. I guess the trick in any A&A game is to find a way create conditions such that the Axis aren’t totally doomed from the outset, since by 1943 the Allies were already thinking about to carve up the world when the war was over haha.
:-D

Again though, bringing it back to the totals, the starting TUV and the composition of that TUV, is way more significant to the overall balance of power than the starting income, or even how much income can be seized through conquest in the opening rounds.

In Global 1940:
Axis TUV is 1499, with a starting income of 66 ipcs.
Allied TUV is 2072, with a starting income of 175 ipcs.

In Global 1942:
Axis TUV is 1445, with a starting income of 112.
Allied TUV is 1670 with a starting income of 142.

In each scenario, both sides have well over 200 units at the outset. The income numbers for 1942 are much closer to what we will be working with, and these numbers are pretty hard to change since our only tool there is NOs. I definitely wouldn’t suggest altering the production values on the game map, as that is way too complicated. The starting territory possession will basically be defined by the timeline, so there’s not a whole lot of room there either to tweak the income numbers. That leaves us with starting TUV, unit composition, and unit location as the main drivers of the play balance.

I’d say we take a 3 step approach…

1. Determine the starting ownership and territory distribution we want for the 1943 timeline, and then see what income numbers this produces.

2. Determine the Turn order, the TUV, and the ideal composition/location of starting units, to give the “feel” of a 1943 opener. E.g. figure out what sorts of opening battles we want to highlight in the first round, and what sort of National Objectives we would like to have, such that the game has the general “flavor” of 1943.

3. Determine the optimal Victory conditions for whatever game steps 1 and 2 produces, such that the game can conclude in a reasonable amount of time.

After we get there, we can tweak the Objectives, increasing or lowering the IPC values awarded for accomplishing the desired goals, along with a some basic unit addition/subtraction here and there, until the scenario is roughly balanced by sides. I think if we work at it in that order, then we’ve probably got a better shot at building a game that will have staying power, with less back tracking or redesign needed midway through the process.

Black_Elk

ps. to be clear, I think Argothairs suggestion could also work, if we are willing to zero the board of all units, and build the starting forces from the ground up.

When I hear mild economic edge for Axis, and deficit in units, I’d read that on the broader continuum. Since Axis don’t have to make more money in total than the Allies to achieve that effect, they just need to make more IPCs each round relative to what they usually earn, relative to their starting TUV/unit composition.

Without wildly distorting the ownership of Axis starting territories, this economic edge would have to be accomplished via NOs. Fairly large NOs too, since you’d only have two Nations on that team. That seems cool with me. NO’s are the best sort of gamey mechanism we have, since it’s all abstract and not tied to the specific ipc/production values of the game map. If you want to bring Axis totals up substantially, I’d do it like that, rather than by trying to engineer an scripted expansion pattern for Axis as a way of equalizing the total loot they can grab for their side each round.

Allies by contrast, would be collecting at similar amount with less objective boosts, but with more starting units already in place, with their unit composition more pre-determined.

So instead of in 1940 where the Axis have the most complex opening moves, in 1943 it could maybe be one of the Allies, say USA, who has to make a complex opener, with tough decisions about how to distribute their starting forces in attacks, and tough decisions about what to by, in order to set the game pace.

I will always argue for a stronger Russia as a way of introducing novelty, but that doesn’t mean you have to nerf everyone else to achieve it. If the set up was designed such that the Western Allies have a �� ton of things to do, and sending fighters to Moscow isn’t one of them, then it makes sense to create a more defensible stand alone player in Russia. A&A has always started in a timeline where Russia is meant to be the weak link, but by 1943 this was not case. 1943 is the year the Red Army turned the corner and starting wining WW2 against Germany for the rest of the world haha ;)

Questions:

Which side would you have move first? Axis or Allies?

What turn order would be the most interesting to pursue in a 5 man? Would you keep it traditional with a Russian opener, or switch things up, the way AA50 did, and have Germany, or Japan move first? And related to this, is it worth mixing up the turn order in a new way to introduce more novelty to the scenario? USA or UK first, for 1943? It could be cool for an early campaign against Italy.

On the idea of turn order, I’ve done a lot of experiments with this on various boards, and I found that its easier to change the starting nation, than it is to change the order or sequence of Nations for any given board. So for example, traditionally in the 5 man it is…
R, G, UK, J, USA.

Instead of altering the sequence the way AA50 did, you can just alter the start point in the sequence like…
USA, R, G, UK, J

Or you can reverse the direction (reading the traditional sequence backwards say, from any point) like…
USA, J, UK, G, R.

Any takers? hehe

Also should capital capture be necessary in order for the Axis to win? I’d vote no on this last, but if no, then really think a VC focus needs to be a priority, and perhaps be built into the National Objective income scheme as some sort of stand alone bonus.

I kind of like that idea, in a 1943 game, where winning as the Axis means expanding just a bit and then “holding out long enough.” Sort of like a mirror image of the Classic game, where Allies win simply by holding out long enough. In 1943 the onus could be on the Allies to attack and destroy the enemy “before time runs out,” whereas usually this onus is on the Axis in A&A. Might be cool for the switch up. I agree that it would be a fun change of pace in an A&A game.

For a proper 5 man, the first addendum to the rules would have to be something like…

All territories with an Italian roundel are considered “originally controlled” by the Germans.
All territories with an Anzac, Canadian, French or Dutch roundel are considered originally controlled by the British.
All territories with a Chinese roundel are considered originally controlled by the Americans.

This way you don’t have to deal with any weird liberation issues, everything is just governed by the roundel drawn on the map, with control assigned to the appropriate nation if the territory is recovered for your team.

If desired you could extend this concept of “control” to the national unit sculpts too. Meaning for example, any Italian units on the map are considered German. Any French or Anzac troops are considered British. With the choice of sculpt/color being merely an aesthetic preference. This would allow players to utilize all their G40 sculpts!

Italian sculpts are considered European Axis under German direction.
French and Anzac sculpts are considered European and Pacific Allies under British direction.

This would allow players to still give the gamemap a global feel, but without requiring all the rules overhead of a 10 nation turn order. Basically these “bonus sculpts” would be interchangeable with the sculpts of the Nation that controls their roundel flag insignia on the gamemap.

Axis & Allies 1943 "Deep War"

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Axis and Allies Expanded Global Scenario

Research & Development House Rule

"Realistic" Casualties and additional pieces

What are "bids"?

Would a "Flanking" bonus be appropriate? Does it fit the global scale of A&A?

Axis and Allies DARKSIDE - Morality Scale and War Crimes Trial.

Colors for Minor Axis Allies and other nations.

Nice roundels for Axis and Allies games…

44

17.8k

40.5k

1.8m