Next Sets from Historical Board Gaming

Does anyone happen to have any red xeno game pieces that they would like to sell?

This sounds incredibly interesting to me. I am all about flexibility in games as it keeps you interested in them. That is what I am attempting with my Global variant map and house rules with it. Except I am only doing WWII as it is what I have available, and due to limited funds and limited experience I am not willing to undertake something like this on my own… yet. But this sounds incredibly interesting. If there is anything I can do to help out let me know. Assuming this goes beyond an idea

@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.

@Tater_07:

Sounds like it could be interesting. I will have to get into miniatures and see if I like it. Thanks for the help!

My pleasure.  Something else to keep in mind is that there are additional differences between various game levels.  The higher the game level, the more the combat process is abstracted; conversely, when you go all the way down to skirmish level, the combat processes can be so finely detailed that they can involve the effects of individual weapons being fired at individual targets and inflicting specific damage on them.  Another difference is the level of command represented by the player himself.  Way up at the grand strategy level, the player basically has the role of a country’s national command authorities (the top civilian and military leadership running the war).  Down at the skirmish level, the player would probably have the role of a squad or platoon leader.

Rick!

Great game you developed, it is awesome - my only suggestion is when you make a reprint, to have the tanks be more A&A size (they are tiny right now)

@C_Strabala:

I am considering buying the pieces only to add to my exspansive collection of plastic miniatures. How well do the ships sit on the gameboard?

The submarines have bodies that are a bit narrow, so they can sometimes tip over, but the other pieces are stable.

An expansion for this Axis and Allies Expansion. Please check:

http://pub50.ezboard.com/fthrashersaxisandalliesforumsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=418.topic

thrasher,