Mixing 'Mechs with A&A?

I’d rather have cheaper, defenseless transport planes myself.

I think that’s totally reasonable, Midnight_Reaper. You could introduce cheaper air transports into this roster without breaking anything important. My preference is for more expensive air transports because the extra price thematically represents (a) the up-front cost of developing the technology and tactics (nobody has to spend money on researching paratroopers for this roster), and (b) the relatively limited supply of air transport available during World War II. There’s a fun little article below about how most of the American Air Force’s transports were either hastily converted civilian planes, or wooden gliders manufactured in piano factories. If the Americans had to make do with makeshift equipment, you can only imagine what the Italians were using.

https://amcmuseum.org/history/world-war-ii-transport-and-troop-carrier/

Strategically, air transports provide a much deeper threat into enemy territory that requires a much larger garrison. E.g. if you put an assault boat in the English Channel, it threatens Normandy, Holland, Norway, Hanover, and Denmark. If you put an air transport in London, it threatens all of those plus Paris, Marseilles, Gibraltar, Morocco, Milan, Berlin, Poland, Finland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. It’s not that I expect anyone to fly many air transports into a battle to use as fodder; it’s just that spending 12 bucks on one air transport can force your opponent to spend more than 12 bucks on extra defending infantry.

In terms of rules simplicity, I have tried to eliminate the concept of the “defenseless unit” from my unit roster. I find automatic combat losses to be something of a downer, and I’d rather use that spot in the rulebook for a more interesting rule.

All of that said, again, this is mostly personal preference – if you want a $9 defenseless air transport with 4 movement, that’s almost certainly fine.

@argothair

An interesting idea, to be sure! But where will we get the new units? Thank you!

Did some real brief digging around on the wiki and found this…

The last part seems to confirm those speculations in Reason 2 Marc mentioned aboved. Though I think there might still be enough in here to justify a starting Strat B for the Russians.

The fact that the Russians are unlikely to ever be able to afford another one would put a ceiling on it, and give a nod to the fact that the Soviet strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 were dwarfed by those of the Western Allies. The logic there I guess would be that Britain and America can readily expand their bomber arsenal through purchasing, whereas the Soviets are basically stuck using what they start out with, or risk just getting crushed in the land war haha.

Anyhow, here’s quick copy paster…

"Soviet strategic bombing
See also: Shuttle bombing and Operation Frantic
The first Soviet offensive bomber campaign was directed against the Romanian oilfields in the summer of 1941.[185] In response to a German raid on Moscow on the night of 21�22 July 1941, Soviet Naval Aviation launched a series of seven raids against Germany, primarily Berlin, between the night of 7�8 August and 3�4 September. These attacks were undertaken by between four and fifteen aircraft�beginning on 11 August the new Tupolev TB-7�from the island of Saaremaa, base of the 1st Torpedo Air Regiment.[185] (At least one raid of the 81st Air Division took off from Pushkin.) Besides thirty tonnes of bombs, they also dropped leaflets with Joseph Stalin’s defiant speech of 3 July. The Soviets sent a total of 549 long-range bombers over German territory in all of 1941.[185]

In March 1942 the strategic bombing arm of the Soviet Union was reorganized as the Long Range Air Force (ADD). It raided Berlin from 26�29 August and again on the night of 9�10 September with 212 planes.[185] It raided Helsinki for the first time on 24 August, Budapest on 4�5 and 9�10 September and Bucharest on 13�14 September. The German-occupied Polish cities of Krakow and Warsaw were not exempt, but the bombers concentrated primarily on military targets.[185] There were 1,114 sorties over Germany in 1942. In March 1943 there was a strategic shift: in preparation for the Kursk Offensive, the bombers were directed against the German railroads behind the front.[185] In April the Long Range Air Force expanded to eight air corps and eleven independent divisions containing 700 planes. After the Kursk preparations, the Soviets turned their attention to administrative and industrial targets in East Prussia in April. With 920 aircraft taking part, they dropped 700 tonnes of bombs there. The largest Soviet bomb of the war, an 11,000-pound weapon, was dropped on Konigsberg during one of these raids.[185]

Throughout 1943, the Soviets attempted to give the impression of cooperation between their bombers and those of the West.[185] In February 1944 they again shifted priority, this time towards terror bombing, with the goal of knocking Finland and Hungary out of the war.[185] Helsinki was struck by 733 bombers on the night of 6�7 February, by 367 on the 15�16th and 850 on the 25�26th. A total of 2,386 tonnes of bombs were dropped.[185] Budapest was hit four straight nights from 13�20 September with a total of 8,000 tonnes by 1,129 bombers. The Soviets flew 4,466 sorties into enemy territory in the year 1944. In December the Long Range Air Force was reorganized as the 18th Air Army.[185]

The main task of the 18th Air Army was to support the final offensive against Germany, but it also undertook raids against Berlin, Breslau, Danzig and Konigsberg.[185] In total, 7,158 Soviet aircraft dropped 6,700 tonnes of bombs on Germany during the war, a modest 3.1% of Soviet bomber sorties, a mere 0.5% of all Allied “strategic” sorties against German-occupied territory and a measly 0.2% of all bombs dropped on it.[185]

After the war, Marxist historians in the Soviet Union and East Germany claimed that the Soviet strategic bombing campaign was limited by moral qualms over bombing civilian centres.[185] One early bombing theorist, Vasili Chripin, whose theories influenced the Soviet Union’s first strategic bombing guidelines (1936) and the service regulations of 26 January 1940, drew back from terror bombing as advocated by Western theorists.[185] The Spanish Civil War also convinced Soviet war planners that the air force was most effective when used in close cooperation with ground forces. Nonetheless, after the war, Marshal Vasili Sokolovsky admitted that the Soviets would have gladly launched a strategic bombing offensive had they the capability.[185] In reality, the Soviets never geared aircraft production towards long-range bombers, and so never had enough to mount an effective campaign. The land-based nature of warfare on the Eastern Front also required closer cooperation between the air forces and ground troops than did, for example, the defence of Great Britain.[185]"

That note 185 heavily referenced above shows the following as its main/only source… so there’s that too I guess. Little lackluster, but you know what they say about beggers lol

Horst Boog; Derry Cook-Radmore, trans., “Part I: The Strategic Air War in Europe and Air Defence of the Reich, 1943�44”, in Germany and the Second World War, Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943�44/5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 [Stuttgart: Deutsche Veralgs-Anstalt GmbH, 2005]), 153�58.

This seems like a very interesting system, I’m definitely going to explore this concept with my buddy next time we get a chance. I remember I once tried to play Classic with my friend Oddie using a full fog of war secret move concept. Basically we tried simultaneous phases (ie. all nations purchase at once, then all nations move at once etc.) Roughly modeled things on Risk II’s system (the old cd game by Microprose of the classic RISK boardgame) for “Same Time” Risk.

We used a screen for each player (similar to the old Dungeon Masters screen, a tri-fold that stands upright.) Purchase was planned, written down, and then hidden behind the screen, not revealed until placement. Movement was written down on an index card and kept secret until both players had recorded all their moves. Same thing for Non combat. It was very important in this case to enforce strict separation of game phases, and to write down everything, which was rather involved.

For combat we always rolled the “border clashes” first, so if both players tried to move across the same border (territory to territory) then that combat was always rolled first and both sides as if their units were “attackers.” After border clashes was the normal combat phase for all players, at the same time, with standard attack and defense. Going basically from the left of the board to the right in order.

It was not a terribly successful approach on game balance, since the game is balanced for tbs, but it was fun for a trial. The main issue we had was trying to find a way to take a TBS game, and make it into a “Same Time” game, this necessitates a completely collapsed turn order and more money HRs to work. And after my buddy moved, I just never had anyone around who was motivated enough to try and figure this stuff out.

Trying to do a Same Time Classic game was also the first one where I ever tried to include variable income bonus rolls, and set bonuses to starting cash. Since the turn order advantage was nonexistent, it was necessary to introduce more money for the game to work on a practical level. Basically finding that if you double the starting cash values for each player, and then randomize bonuses thereafter to about double normal income per round, it gave nations enough money to each to basically counterbalance the effect of trying to do all phases at the same time for each nation. (Since everyone is throwing units everywhere, and since the destroyed TUV in round 1 could then be replaced, later in the game, instead of being lost irreparably in the first round.) It was fun, but required a lot of rethinking, in terms of the basics of how the game operates. The "Same Time idea always seemed a better solution for me than a collapsed TBS order that has all Allies going at once, and then all Axis. Same time had it so that all the purchases, moves, combats and placements occurred at the same time for all Nations.

The ideas CWOMarc is suggesting seem like they might offer something similar in the way of secrecy, but without requiring the full “Same Time” dynamic, where everyone does the same phase at once. I’m intrigued to try it out.

As for the cards, I tried my Income bonus rules again last monday, and again I am convinced that Global can support this fairly well. I have yet to introduce the rest of the gamephases into the card game, but feel confident that given the right set up, Axis and Allies can support a random draw mechanic. Just need to keep drafting and testing until I get the right mix

@Vance:

Thanks YG.  If you don’t mind I think I will post “espionage” as a separate house rule that could work with your tech system, or with just about any tech system for that matter.  You never know someone might use it or get an idea from it.  I love the idea of STEALING the other guy’s tech LOL

Hey man, feel free to use any of my ideas for separate rules, I just ripped off some good ones from Axisplaya and I didn’t feel bad about it one bit 😏 As for espionage, I thought stealing a tech from an enemy might be to powerful for the 10 spot, so I modified it to say develop any tech that an enemy power possesses.

Well a couple of things:

Spain should be at 4IPC: 4 inf, 1 ARM ,1 art, 1 fighter, 1 DD, 1 AP
Turkey at 3: 4 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Art, 1 AP
Arabia at 2: 1 INf
Sweden at 3: 3 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm, 1 AP
each South American nation gets 2 Inf, and each African neutral gets 1 Inf

Sweden provides 1 IPC to Germany each turn as aid as long as they are neutral
Spain can loan out its armor division representing the blue division to Germany while neutral.

Diplomatic is done like Technology except you cant buy it: each side targets one ally per turn and its converted on a roll of 6. If its converted you pay IPC equal in cost to value and then you can use the forces, but you dont collect any money. The only way to collect income is by direct occupation and violate its neutrality.

Either side allies or axis can do this at any time, but you must defeat all its land forces. If it has any leftover naval or air they can be ‘interned’ by the other side and converted (replaced) with its own pieces.

problem solved easily.

@Trisdin:

@Imperious:

A factory is france is worse for Germany, while the others listed are clearly in favor to benefit those players.

Perhaps Romania is best actually. Then Germany can build ships for Medd. Yes i like this better

Romania is a good idea, it gives Germany a second sea zone to build ships in and it allows germany to build land units closer to Russia, but is it historicaly accurate or viable.

yeah, it’s viable: didn’t antonescu aide the germans allot?

@theduke:

that sounds like 2nd or 3rd edition rules (i.e. “original” axis and allies), not 1st edition. are you sure? i’m taking about the very 1st edition… an edition basically no one plays anymore.

The 1st ed was w/ unlimited IC’s.  Even ones you purchased.

Very unbalanced b/c GBR would get an IC for Persia, and move all of the India units to Sinkiang to allow US to buy the IC on the first round.  Round 2 and beyond sees $ 60+/turn worth of allied armor pouring onto the Eurasia landmass to take everything over.