I’m a passionate Axis & Allies player, although I’ve drifted into HBG’s Global War 1936 version, and have been since I first came across it about six years ago. I think I’ve modified and expanded my personal board and miniatures beyond a value of $4000. An insane amount. I’ts a personal hobby and perhaps an addiction.
Anyways! I say all that to illustrate my enthusiasm for the game, and also to illustrate my interest and willingness to change and improve my game to something beyond simple gameplay, and move into a realm of more historical representation.
My interest is to be a Historian first and Boardgamer a close second. I imagine most of you are the same, otherwise many of you would stick to Risk. :-P
When I first started A&A, due to misunderstanding the rules in our haste to begin a game, and since we had no prior experience of the game, me and my brother imagined that the Airforce worked in a different way then the designers intended. Also, since he was my brother, we where not afraid to twist the rules we where aware of as we thought fit.
All Air Units fought ONE round of Air Combat, a Pre-Combat Air Superiority round before the Air-Ground Attack.
Fighters and Enemy Fighters in the province fought vicious dogfights, the high rollers, Bombers made a few hits with their machine guns, but where low rollers. Fighters, being cheaper, absorbed the hits, and dealt the damage, preserving the bombers.
Then the Air-Ground Attack.
The Air-Ground Attack was limited to ONE round of Combat, and only AAA and Cruisers could target them back. Bombers where Kings, they dropped their deadly payloads and decimated the enemy. Fighters could also strafe the ground with their machine guns, but they where low rollers and did not cause much damage. They could still absorb the hits, preserving the bombers to fight another day.
This system worked very well, and we where shocked when we realized other players air units where present the entire battle. Suddenly, Air Units where Kings of Combat, they where the most prized unit. If you lost a Fighter, you might even shed a little tear.
I was a little bit disgusted honestly. Tanks used to be Kings in our games, a stack of Tanks was something to let you gloat or cast fear in your heart. Now, the Airforce? How bizarre. The Airforce shouldn’t be THAT powerful should it? A stack of Airplanes could rapidly flit from front to front and decimate armies, they deployed off the coast and wiped out a fleet, then flit across Europe in time to assist in the defeat of Moscow the next turn.
How many airplanes is a Fighter miniature supposed to represent? 1000 Planes? 2000 Airplanes? And how much is an infantry unit supposed to represent? 50’000 men? 100’000 men? How could a Fighter, 2000 Planes, take out 100’000 men or even 300’000? In a period of 6 months? These numbers are why me and my brother assumed rules for our Airforce without really checking them out.
We kept the same costs for our planes, but we changed their Ground and Air Attacks a bit. We liked our games because it made Tanks the best land units, which we felt was historical, and you needed infantry to back them up. The Bombers Hits on the Ground where bonuses to land battle, but you couldn’t count on them, and sometimes you’d swear at your two bombers unable to hit a lone transport in the sea because you rolled misses, but you rationalized it because the sea is massive, and sometimes you cant find things.
To protect your Armies, you bought AAA that you hauled around with you. Eventually the rules evolved so the Defending Airforce could scramble from Airbases, both on Land and Sea to protect your troops as well. What happened was as you outfitted your Armies with AAA, you had to begin sniping at undefended enemy troops further and further away, gradually migrating your Airforce to Africa, and then suddenly back to the U.K as an opportunity arose.
But because the planes where expensive, one AAA per large army was enough to prevent an enemy bombing run. Once we realized that the designers intended them to be played differently, we dropped their price a bit, especially for Fighters, but we kept our Realistic Airforce Power Rule for me and my brother.
I really liked this rule. It felt historically accurate. Bombers couldn’t destroy 300’000 men in 6 months, Tanks where Kings and wherever they went; they carried battle on their treads.
It’s a unique concept, but because I learnt with it, I accept it as the most natural thing. I like it way more then the original rules.
The few games I do play now, with a few locals, we play as per the original rules, and I find the Powerful Airforce just drives me nuts. I constantly forget, and I risk my transports alone in the water and they get auto-killed, I forget that an enemy can suddenly shift the balance of power extremely radically in their favor from the East to the West by just bouncing their Planes from Paris to Kiev. With the addition of these aluminum flying eggshells, Tanks became kinda boring. All a person needs is Infantry and Airplanes.
Anyways, I’ve tried to introduce a few people to this concept, and even managed to play a game with my rules somewhat in place.
I learned two things:
When playing a game with your rules, don’t be Mr. Nice Guy and let yourself begin making compromises. Its better to stick with one set of rules instead of a constant evolution of what Air Units can’t and cannot do.
Second, we came to a cool compromise. :-) I believe it was present in G39 in some form.
Air Units participate in all rounds of combat, but, Pre-Round, each Round of Combat, an Air Superiority Battle takes place. The Battle of the Skies.
Planes fight for Air Superiority, and the Survivors participate in the Ground Battle. Air units can retreat after each round, and if the Defending Airforce has a Airbase they can also retreat to fight another day.
It works even better if the Defending Airforce can Scramble to adjacent land territories when an airbase is present.
Now we have a vicious and bloody air war, a slogging land war where the Tank is King again, and the Sea…is the Sea.
I still need to figure out how to make naval sea movement somewhat more realistic yet still not allow a player to circumnavigate the globe 8 times before the next turn. Its that Historical Realism vs. Gameplay aspect again.
For now though, I think I like the Modified Airforce rules we have.
Any thoughts?
Take a look at this game: Struggle for Europe and Asia. Great detail, amazing game system.
Hi Jinx,
you seems to have played many times with this air combat phase which preceed regular combat.
Can you share what was the exact cost and combat values of planes in both dogfight and regular combat?
I’m looking for a balanced and working air combat system in my A&A games and such experience is valuable.
I found that special targeting rule for Fg and Tactical bomber seems to work inside regular combat but I have to lower combat values and cost to make it functionnal and must have a three planes Carrier to keep them with a similar offense/defense ratio compared to other warships and OOB loaded Carrier.
Take a look at this game: Struggle for Europe and Asia. Great detail, amazing game system.
This is absolutely fantastic! I’ve been reading the playthrough and the rules over the last couple days. I may need to purchase this. :-)
@Baron:
Hi Jinx,
you seems to have played many times with this air combat phase which preceed regular combat.
Can you share what was the exact cost and combat values of planes in both dogfight and regular combat?
I’m looking for a balanced and working air combat system in my A&A games and such experience is valuable.
I found that special targeting rule for Fg and Tactical bomber seems to work inside regular combat but I have to lower combat values and cost to make it functionnal and must have a three planes Carrier to keep them with a similar offense/defense ratio compared to other warships and OOB loaded Carrier.
@Baron:
Hi Jinx,
you seems to have played many times with this air combat phase which preceed regular combat.
Can you share what was the exact cost and combat values of planes in both dogfight and regular combat?
I’m looking for a balanced and working air combat system in my A&A games and such experience is valuable.
I found that special targeting rule for Fg and Tactical bomber seems to work inside regular combat but I have to lower combat values and cost to make it functionnal and must have a three planes Carrier to keep them with a similar offense/defense ratio compared to other warships and OOB loaded Carrier.
Yep, we have played a bit, and its been modified a few times and tweaked with every game. But the latest game we took a few things apart and still need to test them. I may roll out a few battles.
Also, I’m reading the manual for “Struggle for Europe and Asia” and I may tweak things even further! That game has some amazing game designs incorporated.
The latest iteration of this rule is:
Air Attack (AA), Air Defense (AD), Ground Attack (GA), Move (M), Cost ©. On a D12.
Fighters: AA6 AD6 GA2 M4 C6. Carrier Capable.
Tactical Bombers: AA2 AD2 GA6 M4 C8. Target GA at 1-3. Carrier Capable.
Medium Bombers: AA2 AD2 GA6 M5 C8. Strategic Bombing 1D6. Can launch 1 Airborne Infantry.
Strategic Bombers: AA1 AD1 GA(CB) M6 C10. Carpet Bombing 3D@2. Strategic Bombing 2D6.
Transport Plane: AA0 AD0 GA0 M6 C8. Can Transport 1 Unit. Can launch 1 Airborne Infantry.
One change I’m considering, is to weaken the fighters to an AA4 AD4, just so that air units do not get wiped out so quickly in their Air Supremacy battles.
I texted this to a fellow player just now, and he mentioned that I should write up Ground Defense, Air Units Retreat, and ground to air attacks on Air Units.
Well, in the HBG rules, the Air Units (apart from Fighters) had a lower Defense then Offence. Logically this works in regards to Infantry. Infantry units are dug in, they know the terrain, and have some form of obstacles thrown up against an attack. In the case of Armor, it makes sense that they are better offensively then defensively. They can rapidly breakthrough, encircle, and overrun enemy positions. It makes sense.
Air units though…is a different matter I think. Why are they weaker in defense? Bombers would be up in the air chucking bombs and strafing the enemy. The only reason the aircraft would have a weak defense is if the enemy has Air Superiority, which the Pre-Combat Air Battle would incorporate. After that battle, whatever survives the Air Superiority Battle would have attained at least local air superiority and be capable of strafing and bombing the enemy unit at at least full Attack value.
Which leads to my second point. Airplanes cannot dig in, nor do they have terrain features they can utilize. The only benefit they have is the proximity of their own airbases, which would mean quicker refueling, rebombing, and more time repairing. The downside is that the proximity of airbases mean that the enemy could theoretically bomb the Defending Airforce’s airbases.
Therefore, in the current iteration of the rules, the Airforce has the same Air Attack as Air Defense, and the same Ground Attack as Ground Defense.
These rules are constantly evolving though. So who knows.
Second topic. Can ground units (barring Anti-Aircraft-Armament), fire on Aircraft? I’ve tried it both ways. I prefer little to no hits from ground units to air. I like having to build up an Air War as distinct from a Land War or a Naval War. I like having to build a series of AAA to defend a path from India to Burma so that the Japanese Airforce will hesitate to attack my FEC forces.
But, my co-players disagree, and my last game shifted back into allowing Ground Units to attack as normal. I still think I like the idea of giving each unit an AA value, hovering around 2 or 1, to accurately portray that Artillery Cannon, or a Tank would have a hard time hitting Aircraft.
As for Retreating. After one round of combat, both the attacker and then the defender can choose to withdraw their Airforce from the battle, independent of any land battle. In regards to the defending Airforce, the current rules state that they can withdraw only if there is an airbase present. Although I think I will push for allowing a retreat regardless of airbases. I cant see why not.
I’m tinkering with the idea of allowing naval fleets to do the same after a few rounds. The Air and Naval war where quite mobile, and it makes sense that that after a few rounds of combat, those units where capable of retreating did so.
In regards to retreating:
Air Supremacy Round occurs.
Ground Attack, bombing/strafing.
Attacker now has option to retreat his Air Units.
Air Supremacy Round occurs.
Defender now has option to retreat his Air Units to an Adjacent Territory that is not engaged or contested in battle.
Ground Attack, bombing/strafing.
That’s about it, I’ll post as we tweak the rules further.
