FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: COMMANDER

@Topmat

AxA has often been called a “beer and pretzels” wargame, I suppose because it is fairly simplistic and available—FOR a wargame. That’s not because AxA is elementary or easily mastered, its because other wargames tend to be even more rules-heavy and detailed, which makes some of them famously and notoriously unplayable. They may have an attractive theme or rules, but the “chit” game era (60s-80s) built up to a crescendo before it burst. PC Computer gaming was a major catalyst for this; the ASL/Avalon Hill/SSI style games BEGGED for a computer to handle some of the more complex calculations, setup, rules etc.

I think AxA has the general appeal and longevity it does precisely because it appeared after this “First Golden Age”, and is not married to overcomplex or overly realistic considerations, its a truly “abstract” wargame, where each step (building, conquering, purchasing, combat, movement) is fairly simple, but all together, they are complex enough to satisfy long-time players while only barely overwhelming the new ones.

And, the fact that AxA doesn’t try to simulate or do everything a wargame possibly COULD do is the very reason why there is enough room left in the game to add more, but that’s not necessarily desirable. If the game was already highly complex, rich and random, it would already have many of the things that people are trying to add to it—but its likely no-one would play it. I think most of the more complex house rules systems for AxA fall into this trap, by pushing the complexity/time investment level out of the Goldilocks zone.

I bought a “political” Avalon Hill chit game in 1992, Republic of Rome (4/4 difficulty rating). When I read the instruction manual, I was blown away-- I understood nothing of what i’d read… until I read it for nearly 2 years. We only played it in college 4 times, and the Republic consistently lost as a group. Its a great game, but its also an example of a highly complex simulation game with a narrow audience from the first era–very few people still play these games because they lack any general following or appeal in the internet age, and have been replaced by computer-style games, like the Total War and Europa Universalis series.

No the AAA’s ability to reduce aircraft attack power does not stack, but having two AAAs will allow you to reduce the attack value of up to 6 aircraft.  Also, the controlling player (attacker) chooses SBR casualties.

From our limited experience, one fighter usually isn’t enough to deter a SBR.  Remember that there are no longer any AA shots on attacking planes during a SBR so fighters are the only thing the defender has to inflict damage on the attacker.  If he chooses not to intercept due to escorts, the attacker will inflict bombing damage with no losses.  Escorts were used more to take hits from the defending fighters so the bombers would continue to do damage.  A territory defended by an AA gun and a stack of fighters is a hard target and usually not cost effective to bomb unless you have a massive air force.  Germany needs to use it’s full airforce if it wants to SBR England effectively.  Russia needs to actually build fighters or ask for allied fighters if it wants to defend it’s factories.

We could increase the max damage a facility could take to increase the potential damage of a SBR.  We’ll have to play more games with this to see how changes things.

@knp7765:

Hey Jennifer,
I like your ideas. I think they more reflect how strategic bombers worked. One thing that always bothered me is someone sending transports for an amphibious assault escorted by bombers to fight any scramble planes. For the game it does make sense, bombers attack @4 so they would be great to deal with scrambling fighters and/or tacs. However, in reality, it is just ludicrous.
Also, I think the idea of defending bombers having a defense of 0 is a great idea, as well as your “chosen last as casualties” idea.

Hey KNP,
I agree on what you found ludicrous.

I provided a way of turning things a bit differently not only for Strategic Bombers but mainly for Tactical Bombers,
in this more defined HR on aircrafts units:

Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34667.msg1337965#msg1337965

Hope, you can like it.

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.

So, A&A takes place in an era where the locomotive is a mature and widely-implemented technology, even in remote regions like Africa. Why can infantry only move one space? For combat movement, this makes complete sense. The troops are moving in a hostile situation in which every mile can be a struggle. But, why couldn’t the USSR move troops from Vladivostok to Leningrad in a single turn? Turns represent a lot of time, plenty of time to shift all the resources that go along with an infantry unit. Trains are fast, when its simply a matter of moving men and equipment through friendly land.

Now, A&A is a game and is not always realistic. But, being able to move troops more fluidly within friendly territory could open up the game’s strategies somewhat. I think it makes an interesting thought experiment. I’m using AA40G to think this through - but it could be applied to other versions as well. Its particularly important for the AA40 series though because of the larger map size that can mean some land units move entirely through friendly land can sometimes take 5-6 turns to get where they are going - far too long. 4 Turns to shift infantry from Normandy to Poland. 6 turns from Korea to Burma. Russia’s Eastern Front to the west… etc. This unnecessarily ties game resources up.

Suggested rule:
All powers in possession of their capital may move land or units that have not moved in combat at all and are on a land friendly space (not on a transport) to any other friendly land space, as long as a path can be traced that only involves land spaces that started the turn under your control. Air units may then make an additional non-combat move as per regular rules.

Can you guys help me think this one through?

Problems:
The game is not designed around this, which means assured problems with the setup.  Is there any potential leapfrogging abuse? Say, my ally takes over a space, and then during my turn this paves the way for me to take some abusive path.
It also means the extra price of Mech and Armor is not as worth it. They are much more flexible on the front, since they can attack two spaces away, but it does boost the effectiveness of Infantry and Artillery which decreases Armor and Mech by comparison.

How it would affect powers:
Germany: I actually think this would add a lot to the game, since Germany’s troop deployment is more liquid. You still have to keep troops on the Atlantic coast to resist allied landings, but Germany can also react to these landings effectively. This also means that getting air units to Norway is easier.

The USSR has 18 infantry on its eastern front. If they are more easily able to send things between east and west, those 18 become a bit much. This seems solvable though - reduce infantry that start there and then add some in case of Japanese attack or some such. I think the change will make their front with Germany more interesting.

Japan is able to funnel troops into SE Asia much more easily. It presents an interesting dynamic where Japan could keep lots of transports in the sea of Japan to funnel troops into Manchuria, then from Manchuria to their destination the next turn. I like this dynamic, but this rule change seems like it could break an already troubled India.  Perhaps a reduction in starting units could offset the advantage that increased mobility gives them - they benefit from it more than any other Pacific power.

UK is now able to move troops from South Africa to Egypt very easily. This makes stopping Italy very hard. Other than that, so much of the UK is overseas that they benefit very little.

Anzac can move troops to Western Australia with ease. I think this is a good thing - it means if Japan invades they don’t invade lightly.

Italy is able to help Germany out on the eastern front more easily. They also are able to shuffle troops plunging into Africa back to defend Morocco.

United States: This makes it easier to shuffle troops between the east and west coasts. A plane built in Eastern US can make it to Hawaii. Which actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t view the decreased need to commit builds to one front or another as a major problem for the game - naval builds are still committed and other builds are committed the second they leave the continental US.

France doesn’t have their capital and can’t take advantage of this. This stops them from stockpiling their African troops in Egypt.

China doesn’t have a capital, can’t ever use this.

Anything I am missing? Thoughts?

I added various links and made some changes to the first three parts of the rules, technology, and units.

New Units

IPC Lend-Lease
IPCs can be converted to raw materials (represented by tokens from AA Battle of the Bulge). These tokens can be transported by transport, cargo plane, and/or mechanical infantry.  Transports and cargo planes can carry up to 10 IPC’s and mechanical infantry can carry up to 5. The raw materials can be moved to a team player as either a loan or gift (based on verbal agreement). These raw materials are produced at industrial complexes. Production of 3 raw materials at an industry only counts against 1 production cap. (E.g. A major industry could produce 30 raw materials in one turn) No IPCs can be “pirated,” they are destroyed along with the units carrying them with the exception of those that are carried over land. Mechanical infantry transporting raw materials cannot attack, but defend normally.

Pillbox
Pillboxes cost 5 IPCs (limit one per territory) and can take 2 hits before any hits have to be taken against your defending land units. Pillboxes are destroyed if territory is captured. Pillboxes can be repaired, even if fully damaged, at the cost of 1IPC per damage marker. Counts as a facility for sabotage and increased factory production technology purposes only. Cannot be strategically bombed or attacked by a rocket attack. Can be upgraded to a fortress for 10 IPCs.

Fortress
Fortresses cost 12 IPCs (limit one per territory) and replace pillboxes. They can take 4 hits before any hits have to be taken against your defending land units. Fortresses are destroyed if territory is captured. Fortresses can be repaired, even if fully damaged, at the cost of 1IPC per damage marker. Counts as a facility and has antiaircraft defense against strategic bombing runs and rocket attacks only. Defends at a 3 during all combat rounds, stops defending after 3 damage inflicted against it.

Shore Batteries
Shore Batteries cost 8 IPCs (limit one per territory) and roll 1 dice for each transport conducting an amphibious assault and each warship conducting a coastal bombardment. Hits on a 1. Movement 1.

Cargo Planes
Cargo planes may transport two infantry or one infantry and artillery or one mechanical infantry or one tank into a friendly territory. All units must start from the same location. Cargo planes cost 12 IPCs, move 6, and have an attack value of 0 (may be taken as casualties in an offensive, but must be Para dropping).

Land Mine Fields
Mine fields cost 10 IPCs (limit one per territory). Mine fields roll 1 dice for each land unit (including paratroopers) attacking the territory and hit on a 1. Destroyed if territory lost. Built directly on the territory. Territory must have been under your control since beginning of turn.

Naval Mine Fields
Naval mines cost 8 IPCs (limit one per border). Naval borders are mined instead of sea zones (white chips for Allies and grey for Axis) deployed where your cruiser present. Cruiser must not have been in combat on same round. Can be removed by opposing destroyers if destroyer has not been in combat on same round. Rolls 1 dice for each ship/sub passing through sea border. Hits on a 1.
Axis mines: http://www.mediafire.com/?tao8kieyv8i6xu9
Allied mines: http://www.mediafire.com/?kcn6osvgwx0vc5x

Spy Network Rules:

Spies (represented by infantry) cost 3 IPC’s each and are designated as either sabotage or espionage. When the spy is designated it cannot be changed. Only 1 spy per slot (espionage and sabotage).
Espionage:
To use a spy for espionage, roll 1D6, the player whom you are using the spy against then rolls 1D6, if the defending player wins nothing happens. Defender wins on a tie. If you win, see espionage below and leave the spy on the board for further use.
Sabotage:
To use a spy for sabotage, roll 1D6, the player whom you are using the spy against then rolls 1D6, if the defending player wins, the spy is captured. Remove the spy from the board. Defender wins on a tie. If you win, see sabotage below and leave the spy on the board for further use.
http://www.mediafire.com/?smq4qqddfvnqicq

Espionage
When the targeted opponent finishes its combat move phase, but before its conduct combat phase, you may make one special move. You may move any number of your units from any one adjacent space into one friendly space being attacked by that opponent. Alternatively, you may move any number of your units from a space being attacked by opponent into an adjacent friendly space, but you must leave at least one of your units behind. This special move otherwise follows the rules for a noncombat move. If your units survive, they remain in the space to which they were moved. This ability must be used on the targeted opposition’s NEXT combat move/conduct combat phases following your successful espionage role.

Sabotage
You may immediately roll 1D4 against a chosen facility owned by targeted player. That amount rolled on the die is damage done to that facility. If the chosen facility is an industrial complex, normal damage rules apply. Does not destroy pillboxes or fortresses.

Part 3 - Technology
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21072.0

Edit: added links to Axis and Allies’ chips

@adam.hall:

@skinny1:

I found a pack of these at a Dollar General store. They were on sale for 25% off so with tax the pack of 4 cost $.80. Thanks for the tip. I can’t wait to paint these and add them to my games.

Good to hear you tracked some down; are they exactly the same? Paint 'em up and post some photos.  :-)

Yeah, they are the same. Package was a little different but the pieces are the same.