Next Sets from Historical Board Gaming

@Imperious-Leader I live in central Missouri… I’m just going to a gaming con in Tulsa in February

@SuperbattleshipYamato I fixed it now! :) Should be good to go!

@Imperious:

The look of the map needs to be really redone with a different aesthetic if you want to make it a success. It appears that the easy way out was taken by using that old map or rehashing an old map already made for another purpose.

Yes it is IL. Play testing it with different territory values of Russian , China and Islands.
Making Japan have to go and get and defend islands if they want any money.

@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.

@Imperious-Leader Only the setUp cards of all the dropbox documents can be opened. The rest of documents aren’t there any longer.

I had a similar idea for my my big variant where that uses some historical and balance modifications. Basically there would be more than just an axis or allies alliance. The game starts in 1919 and carries on into the 21st century and has technological advancement stages and political rules. It has build-up/political rounds and at turn 20 i.e. 1939 the war starts WWII and doesn’t until either the Comitern, Nationalist, or Allied forces lose a super power’s capital. A cold war begins and limited warfare and second build up/political phase begins. The first superpower to make an aggressive action then starts World War III.

Everyone will start out with exactly the same military forces but maintains thier sphere of influence and must choose their alignments and government styles.

The game will be complicated but simple at the same time with most of the luck factor going towards combat.

The US, UK, USSR, Germany, and Japan will be the five major superpowers. The USSR represents all communist aligned powers but may make alliances with either the Axis or Allies. France, Italy and Anzac may ally themselves with any major superpower except Anzac may never go to war against the U.K.

All minors will play a role in the game too with limited but playable forces. Some will literally act as puppet-states to the superpowers.

I would go on further but there are more details im working on and do not want to divert the thread from the original topic. Also my post is just part of a rough draft.

Sorry guys,

I think I misunderstood the question. I meant that G40 had enough different unit types to cover the units in the game. But you are correct Empireman, pieces would need to be painted to have enough colors. Or, you could buy some other colored pieces. Playable powers are France, UK, Russia, Italy, Serbia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Japan, USA, China, ANZAC. Serbia and China have no Air or Naval ability.

@wittmann:

Knp: I agree.

Ditto here!  I hope this really can be a fresh start this year for FMG, for sure, and I too wish I had a boatload of money I could invest.  I did make a modest little order to show my support, though, and to express tangibly that “no hard feelings” on my part.  Just remember, we can forgive a lot, but if you don’t tell us what’s going on for months at a time, we don’t know if we should even risk making orders for “in stock” items, as we might fear the company’s going out of business and can’t fulfill them.  So please, please keep us posted… And just as important, is not more so, keep in touch with Coach!  And please coordinate with him more closely in the future when you’re ready to roll out more new products… (…last I checked we were headed for a situation where we were going to have 3 different companies doing a Tiger I and none doing a Panzer IV, for instance…)