I’ve played with the house rule of- everyone(except China) gets one free roll at the beginning of every complete round. If you want more, you use the OOB rules for R&D as usual.
RetroFuhrerMeister's 1940 Rules and Setup
-
The 1940 Setup (Blue for Pacific only, Red for Europe only; Any national objectives regarding regions in the Pacific or Europe are altered or removed to only apply to said region if only one side of the map is played; much like my 1942 setup, Soviet units don’t exist in Pacific only game, and ANZAC units don’t exist in Europe only game, in addition, with the exception of French Indo China [see below], no French units exist in the Pacific only game):
FRANCE-19/17IPCs:
France: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAGun, Major Factory, Airbase
Normandy Bordeaux: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, Minor Factory, Seabase
Southern France: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAGun, Minor Factory, Seabase
Morocco: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Algeria: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
Tunisia: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Syria: 1 Infantry
French Equatorial Africa: 1 Infantry
French Indo China: 1 Infantry, Seabase
French Indo China: Seabase
Sea Zone 36: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 51: 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber
Sea Zone 72: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 93: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 99: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 105: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 TransportGERMANY-30 IPCs:
Germany: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, 2 Tactical Bombers, 2 AAGuns, Major Factory
Western Germany: 11 Infantry, 4 Artillery, 2 Tanks, 3 Fighters, 3 Tactical Bombers, 2 Strategic Bombers, 4 AAGuns, Major Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Greater Southern Germany: 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery
Holland Belgium: 6 Mechanized Infantry, 6 Tanks, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 2 AAGuns
Poland: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Tactical Bomber
Hungary Slovakia: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank
Romania: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
Denmark: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank
Norway: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, Airbase
Sea Zone 95: 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 2 Tanks, 2 Transports
Sea Zone 90: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 102: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 108: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 112: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 113: 1 Submarine, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 117: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 124: 1 SubmarineUNITED KINGDOM-[28/[color=red]29 IPCs Europe] [17/[color=blue]16 IPCs Pacific]:
United Kingdom: 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 4 AAGuns, Major Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Scotland: 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Fighter, 2 AAGuns, Airbase, Seabase
Iceland: Airbase
Ontario: 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry
Quebec: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, Minor Factory
New Brunswick Nova Scotia: 1 Strategic Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Gibraltar: 1 Infantry, 1 AAGun, Airbase, Seabase
Malta: 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 AAGun, Airbase
Cyprus: Airbase
Alexandria: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 AAGun
Egypt: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, Minor Factory, Seabase
Egypt: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, Minor Factory, Seabase
Anglo Egyptian Sudan: 1 Infantry
Rhodesia: 1 Infantry
Union of South Africa: 1 Infantry, Minor Factory, Seabase
West India: 2 Infantry
Normandy Bordeaux: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry
Sea Zone 71: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 71: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 91: 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber
Sea Zone 98: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 106: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 109: 1 Destroyer, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 110: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 111: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship
India: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 3 AAGuns, Major Factory, Airbase, Seabase
India: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, 4 AAGuns, Major Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Burma: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Kwangtung: 1 Infantry, 1 AAGun, Airbase, Seabase
Malaya: 1 Infantry, Seabase
Gilbert Islands: Airbase
Samoa: Seabase
Sea Zone 37: 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 TransportSOVIET UNION-37/28 IPCs:
Russia: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAGun, Minor Factory, Airbase
Volgograd: 1 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, Airbase
Novgorod: 4 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 4 AAGuns, Airbase, Seabase
Vyborg: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Karelia: 1 Infantry
Baltic States: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Eastern Poland: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Bessarabia: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Belarus: 1 Infantry
Western Ukraine: 1 Infantry
Ukraine: 1 Infantry, 1 Tactical Bomber, Airbase
Archangel: 1 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank
Caucasus: 1 Infantry
Novosibirsk: 2 Infantry
Novosibirsk: 4 Infantry
Samara: 2 Infantry
Kazakhstan: 2 Infantry
Yakut S.S.R.: 1 Infantry
Buryatia: 2 Infantry
Sakha: 2 Infantry
Siberia: 2 Infantry
Soviet Far East: 1 Infantry, Seabase
Amur: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 AAGun
Sea Zone 5: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 115: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 127: 2 Submarines[BONUS National Objective] Soviet Far East Reinforcements and Siberian Supply Line: +14 IPCs for the Soviet Union to be at war with a European Axis power, and in the control of Novosibirsk
JAPAN-26 IPCs:
Japan: 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tactical Bombers, 1 Strategic Bomber, 3 AAGuns, Major Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Korea: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAGun
Okinawa: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Airbase
Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAGun, Airbase, Seabase
Marianas: 1 Infantry
Marshall Islands: 1 Infantry
Caroline Islands: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAGun, Airbase, Seabase
Paulau Island: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Airbase
Formosa: 1 Fighter, Airbase
Hainan: 1 Infantry
Siam: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Manchuria: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAGun, Airbase, Control Marker
Jehol: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Control Marker
Shangtung: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, Airbase, Seabase, Control Marker
Kiangsu: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, Minor Factory, Control Marker
Kiangsi: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Control Marker
Kwangsi: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Control Marker
Sea Zone 6: 1 Submarine, 2 Destroyers, 2 Cruisers, 1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Fighters, 2 Tactical Bombers, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 17: 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 19: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 20: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 33: 2 Submarines, 1 Destroyer, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical BomberANZAC-10 IPCs:
New South Wales: 2 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 AAGun, Minor Factory, Seabase
Queensland: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Airbase, Seabase
New Zealand: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tactical Bomber, Airbase, Seabase
Solomon Islands: Airbase
Malaya: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 AAGun
Sea Zone 36: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 54: 1 Submarine, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber
Sea Zone 59: 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 62: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63: 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 72: 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 99: 1 DestroyerUNITED STATES-52/17/35 IPCs:
Eastern United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAGuns, Minor Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Eastern United States: 4 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAGuns, Minor Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Central United States: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, Minor Factory
Western United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAGuns, Minor Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Western United States: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAGuns, Minor Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Panama: Seabase
Alaska: 1 Infantry
Hawaiian Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 AAGun, Airbase, Seabase
Midway: 1 Infantry, 1 AAGun, Airbase
Wake Island: Airbase
Guam: Airbase
Philippines: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAGun, Airbase, Seabase
Sea Zone 10: 1 Battleships, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber
Sea Zone 25: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 26: 2 Battleships, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Fighters, 2 Tactical Bombers
Sea Zone 35: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 51: 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber
Sea Zone 64: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 64: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 101: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer[BONUS National Objective] Western Front Total War: +35 IPCs for the United States to be at war with Japan, and in the control of Western United States (Replacing Full War Economy Objective)
[BONUS National Objective] Eastern Front Total War: +30 IPCs for the United States to be at war with a European Axis power, and in the control of Eastern United States and Central United States (Replacing Full War Economy Objective)
ITALY-10 IPCs:
Southern Italy: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tactical Bomber, 2 AAGuns, Minor Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Northern Italy: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAGuns, Major Factory
Albania: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
Sardinia: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Sicily: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Libya: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Tobruk: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 AAGun
Ethiopia: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Italian Somaliland: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 76: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 95: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 96: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 97: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 103: 1 SubmarineCHINA-12 IPCs:
Yunnan: 2 Infantry
Szechwan: 4 Infantry
Kweichow: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 AAGun, Airbase
Hunan: 4 Infantry
Shensi: 2 Infantry,
Hopei: 1 Infantry
Anhwe: 2 Infantry
Suiyuyan: 1 Infantry, 1 AAGun
Chahar: 4 Infantry
French Indo China: 1 Infantry -
I like it a lot! Unfortunately my group refuses to play a game which “forces them to learn everything all over again.” Particularly the NOs.
-
I updated the rules, I am trying to figure a good rule for the Canadian territories.
-
1. Heavy Tanks: Tanks may now take 2 hits
I find this tech extremely questionable from both a gameplay and historical perspective.
Gameplay wise, would this not make tanks really overpowered? They’d be vastly superior to 2 Infantry offense-wise, but also nearly their equal defensively!
Historically, heavy tanks were not that great. They were expensive, slow, prone to mechanical failure, and generally not that much better than medium tanks, which is why they aren’t used in modern warfare. Main battle tanks are superior.
-
1. Heavy Tanks: Tanks may now take 2 hits
I find this tech extremely questionable from both a gameplay and historical perspective.
Gameplay wise, would this not make tanks really overpowered? They’d be vastly superior to 2 Infantry offense-wise, but also nearly their equal defensively!
Historically, heavy tanks were not that great. They were expensive, slow, prone to mechanical failure, and generally not that much better than medium tanks, which is why they aren’t used in modern warfare. Main battle tanks are superior.
I changed it a little, slightly more balanced. I wanted to somehow get Heavy Tanks in here without adding more units (notice the lack of the new Marine unit created for the Balance mod).
Some national objectives changed, mostly for the sake of adding more areas of interest for particular nations. I’ll do more if any ideas on my end or yours come up.
I’m still trying to figure a rule for the Canadian territories, I want one for them due to the different control marker, to give it more of a purpose than simply just acknowledging Canada’s contributions.
EDIT: Forgot some units in the setup for United Kingdom.
-
I love this setup! great work!
The NO’s and the order of play makes a lot more sense. some rules i won’t use such as R&D, new unit prices, Amphibious assault rules etc.
The game will be very complicated because there are lots of new rules and many many many new air- and naval bases.Great to see ANZAC and France a lot stronger so they really aid the Allies!
Can you write down the philosophy behind the political situation , the setup, the NO’s and the order of play ? Just to introduce the scenario for new players
-
I love that you have France going first, and I think your changes to the unit stats (cheaper cruiser, strategic bomber doesn’t massacre ships, etc.) are several steps in the right direction.
I’d encourage you to spend some more time balancing the value of your techs against each other. I enjoy playing with techs, but a common, valid criticism of A&A Revised Edition was that if you rolled Heavy Bombers or Long-Range Aircraft, the game was yours, and if you rolled Rockets or War Bonds, then you wasted your money. The “roll at ever easier targets until you discover something” solves the problem where you might not discover any tech, but it doesn’t solve the problem where some techs are worth much, much more than others.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, a nation that’s earning about 65 IPCs / turn. Could be Germany, Japan, USA – doesn’t really matter. A major power. Efficient Industrialization tech is worth at least 16 IPCs / turn to that major power, even if they don’t alter their strategy at all. If you build something really balanced and ordinary like 4 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk, 2 DD, 1 CV, and 1 ftr, you save sixteen IPCs because of your new tech. Every turn.
Now let’s take that same 65 IPCs and see how it benefits from Improved Artillery tech. Well, you could get away with building 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 2 DD, 1 CV, and 1 ftr, for total savings of 1 IPC per turn. If you really wanted to stress your artillery advantage, you could build something like 10 inf, 3 art and save 2-3 IPCs/turn. It’s just not in the same league as Efficient Industrialization. It could be useful for Russia if you’ve already built a huge stack of infantry and you need an offensive boost NOW because you’ve run short on artillery with which to trade territories … but I think Russia would still much rather have the Industrial advantage, because with the savings from Efficient Industrialization, Russia could just buy more infantry and more artillery.
So, yeah, my advice is to look at each of your techs, calculate the rough value in IPCs/turn that each tech represents to a major power, and make sure they’re within a few IPCs/turn of each other.
Specifically on the Heavy Tanks thing, I think your idea is really cool, but I agree with ammantai that heavy tanks historically were crazy expensive and could not be manufactured in strategically significant quantities. They were also no better than medium tanks at mowing down infantry – you only needed heavy tanks if you were fighting against medium tanks. With that in mind, here’s how I would reword Heavy Tanks:
“During land battles, in each round of combat during which both you and your opponent have at least one tank, you ignore the first casualty inflicted on you (if any).”
That way you can’t use a tank stack to (unrealistically and annoyingly) absorb a dozen hits each round, but your tanks will still fight better than your opponent’s tanks in a way that’s fun to exploit.
-
@Don:
I love this setup! great work!
The NO’s and the order of play makes a lot more sense. some rules i won’t use such as R&D, new unit prices, Amphibious assault rules etc.
The game will be very complicated because there are lots of new rules and many many many new air- and naval bases.Great to see ANZAC and France a lot stronger so they really aid the Allies!
Can you write down the philosophy behind the political situation , the setup, the NO’s and the order of play ? Just to introduce the scenario for new players
My philosophy was putting the start date a bit earlier, prior to the evacuation of Dunkirk. Thus France has one last moment to provide an impact before Germany destroys her. The British are still stuck in France, so the Germans have the opportunity to wipe them out and correct a mistake. The Soviet Union must prepare itself for the fight of it’s life if it wishes to spread “communism” to Europe, it’s industry is behind somewhat. Japan presses itself further into China, but must be cautious of the Soviet forces and the ever painful Chinese guerrillas. ANZAC must position itself for the moment Japan decides to play aggressive in the Pacific. The United States is in a vulnerable position, it’s units are stuck almost exclusively to American regions. Italy is about to enter the war, and will receive German aid in crushing the British in Africa. China will need to weigh it’s options. Eventually everyone gets in the war, most if not all neutrals will be invaded in all likelihood. Basically in a nutshell, I wanted every nation to be able to contribute a significant bit.
I love that you have France going first, and I think your changes to the unit stats (cheaper cruiser, strategic bomber doesn’t massacre ships, etc.) are several steps in the right direction.
I’d encourage you to spend some more time balancing the value of your techs against each other. I enjoy playing with techs, but a common, valid criticism of A&A Revised Edition was that if you rolled Heavy Bombers or Long-Range Aircraft, the game was yours, and if you rolled Rockets or War Bonds, then you wasted your money. The “roll at ever easier targets until you discover something” solves the problem where you might not discover any tech, but it doesn’t solve the problem where some techs are worth much, much more than others.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, a nation that’s earning about 65 IPCs / turn. Could be Germany, Japan, USA – doesn’t really matter. A major power. Efficient Industrialization tech is worth at least 16 IPCs / turn to that major power, even if they don’t alter their strategy at all. If you build something really balanced and ordinary like 4 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk, 2 DD, 1 CV, and 1 ftr, you save sixteen IPCs because of your new tech. Every turn.
Now let’s take that same 65 IPCs and see how it benefits from Improved Artillery tech. Well, you could get away with building 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 2 DD, 1 CV, and 1 ftr, for total savings of 1 IPC per turn. If you really wanted to stress your artillery advantage, you could build something like 10 inf, 3 art and save 2-3 IPCs/turn. It’s just not in the same league as Efficient Industrialization. It could be useful for Russia if you’ve already built a huge stack of infantry and you need an offensive boost NOW because you’ve run short on artillery with which to trade territories … but I think Russia would still much rather have the Industrial advantage, because with the savings from Efficient Industrialization, Russia could just buy more infantry and more artillery.
So, yeah, my advice is to look at each of your techs, calculate the rough value in IPCs/turn that each tech represents to a major power, and make sure they’re within a few IPCs/turn of each other.
Specifically on the Heavy Tanks thing, I think your idea is really cool, but I agree with ammantai that heavy tanks historically were crazy expensive and could not be manufactured in strategically significant quantities. They were also no better than medium tanks at mowing down infantry – you only needed heavy tanks if you were fighting against medium tanks. With that in mind, here’s how I would reword Heavy Tanks:
“During land battles, in each round of combat during which both you and your opponent have at least one tank, you ignore the first casualty inflicted on you (if any).”
That way you can’t use a tank stack to (unrealistically and annoyingly) absorb a dozen hits each round, but your tanks will still fight better than your opponent’s tanks in a way that’s fun to exploit.
I’m considering the Artillery tech to provide 3 Infantry an attack boost, weakening Efficient Industrialization somehow, and have it where Tanks only get a free hit during an attack for every Tank the enemy has.
-
@RetroFuhrerMeister:
Two Powers of the same alliance may not enter one another’s territory unless they share a state of war with at least one enemy power. This rule also applies to Canals and Straits.
We will be playing A&A this weekend, we might try this alternatve setup and rules. I like it a lot!
Can you explain the political situation between Germany and Italy? Italy is neutral till round 2 so France and UK can’t attack Italy. Italy however can (and probably will) attack the UK and/or france It.1.
Germany starts with two loaded transports in SZ 95 and share this zone with Italy. France and the UK are at war with Germany and neutral to Italy. They can’t enter SZ 95, 96 and 97 so the german transports are safe in this seazone.
I was wondering: is Germany allowed to drop their units in Lybia or Tobruk (so the transports stay in SZ 95 or 96)? If so, can Germany also send land units into northern Italy during NCM? this way Germany can send reinforcements to Africa G2.
If Germany is not allowed to do so, i’ll leave the transport in SZ 95,96 or 97 G1. When Italy is at war the Germans can use their transports. Leaving the transports outside SZ 95,96 or 97 is suicide.
-
@Don:
@RetroFuhrerMeister:
Two Powers of the same alliance may not enter one another’s territory unless they share a state of war with at least one enemy power. This rule also applies to Canals and Straits.
We will be playing A&A this weekend, we might try this alternatve setup and rules. I like it a lot!
Can you explain the political situation between Germany and Italy? Italy is neutral till round 2 so France and UK can’t attack Italy. Italy however can (and probably will) attack the UK and/or france It.1.
Germany starts with two loaded transports in SZ 95 and share this zone with Italy. France and the UK are at war with Germany and neutral to Italy. They can’t enter SZ 95, 96 and 97 so the german transports are safe in this seazone.
I was wondering: is Germany allowed to drop their units in Lybia or Tobruk (so the transports stay in SZ 95 or 96)? If so, can Germany also send land units into northern Italy during NCM? this way Germany can send reinforcements to Africa G2.
If Germany is not allowed to do so, i’ll leave the transport in SZ 95,96 or 97 G1. When Italy is at war the Germans can use their transports. Leaving the transports outside SZ 95,96 or 97 is suicide.
Germany and Italy are neutral to one another, technically all Axis powers are neutral to each other at the moment.
Thus units can’t enter Italian territory, they are basically stuck till G2, unless France moves it’s units out of neighboring sea zones to it’s own territory.
-
Facilities roll AA Fire now at 2.
Strategic Bombers can only attack at 2 against naval units.
Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 bombing damage bonus if they depart from an operational Airbase.What line of reasoning made you radically change the AA facilities to @2?
The other two seems enough to better balance StBs.
I can see from historical perspective reducing StBs vs naval units to A2 or from game POV to limit Dark Skies Strategy.
The first one, IC’s AA@2, completly negates StBs usefulness in SBR.
Hence, StBs stay unhistorically useful for regular combat against ground units. -
@Baron:
Facilities roll AA Fire now at 2.
Strategic Bombers can only attack at 2 against naval units.
Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 bombing damage bonus if they depart from an operational Airbase.What line of reasoning made you radically change the AA facilities to @2?
The other two seems enough to better balance StBs.
I can see from historical perspective reducing StBs vs naval units to A2 or from game POV to limit Dark Skies Strategy.
The first one, IC’s AA@2, completly negates StBs usefulness in SBR.
Hence, StBs stay unhistorically useful for regular combat against ground units.It was to help aid the Soviet Union, who is destroyed by bombing faster than by actual combat, resulting in most of the axis victories you tend to see.
I’ll change the AA fire rule. It will only apply to Major Factories, and it is modified enough to still help out the Soviet Union and not discourage bombing too much for Germany.
Please see the original post.
-
@RetroFuhrerMeister:
@Baron:
Facilities roll AA Fire now at 2.
Strategic Bombers can only attack at 2 against naval units.
Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 bombing damage bonus if they depart from an operational Airbase.What line of reasoning made you radically change the AA facilities to @2?
The other two seems enough to better balance StBs.
I can see from historical perspective reducing StBs vs naval units to A2 or from game POV to limit Dark Skies Strategy.
The first one, IC’s AA@2, completly negates StBs usefulness in SBR.
Hence, StBs stay unhistorically useful for regular combat against ground units.It was to help aid the Soviet Union, who is destroyed by bombing faster than by actual combat, resulting in most of the axis victories you tend to see.
I’ll change the AA fire rule. It will only apply to Major Factories, and it is modified enough to still help out the Soviet Union and not discourage bombing too much for Germany.
Please see the original post.
Interesting idea to increase AA defense in a progressive way :
1AA for minor IC and 2AA for major IC.
Maybe when a major IC is unable to produce, it cannot use the second AA? -
I realize this is quite out of place as I see that’s the main goal was better rules than better setup, but is it possible to play this with standard rules (perhaps only change the turn order)? My fellow gamers still refuse to play it, but I love to play any alternate setup I can get my hands on! Thanks.
de Gaulle
-
@Charles:
I realize this is quite out of place as I see that’s the main goal was better rules than better setup, but is it possible to play this with standard rules (perhaps only change the turn order)? My fellow gamers still refuse to play it, but I love to play any alternate setup I can get my hands on! Thanks.
de Gaulle
You could try, but expect possible balance issues.
-
Is there any feedback on playing this set up/turn order/NO’s?
-
France goes first with more units & aircraft carrier
-
Italy starts out neutral
-
US navy with 4 aircraft carriers to start
Just to name a few changes that seem big to me. The victory conditions listed & different NO from the original I have used before and found them to enhance the game play.
Hopefully, I can get this set up/rules in place and we can try it out soon. Just curious in the meantime what others have discovered from their experience.
-
Suggested Topics
