Next Sets from Historical Board Gaming

It depends on what “work” means – in other words, on whether players would consider a Kursk scenario appealing.  Conceptually, Kursk would be similar to A&A D-Day (minus the water) in the sense that the battle was fundamentally a frontal assault on a heavily-defended static position, and similar to A&A Battle of the Bulge in the sense that it would involve ground forces driving into enemy lines, but different from both games in the sense that from the German point of view Kursk was a pincer movement aimed at pinching off a salient, and that from the Russian point of view it was a two-stage offensive-defensive battle.  Personally I think it has good potential to make an interesting game, if it’s designed properly.

@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.

@ghr2:

You should definitely get some sort of protective layer for that map.

I’m going to at some point. Until, I get a permanent place to play, it is rolled up in a cylinder tube. I’m going to have a man cave built, and then I will work on things like that. I’m going to have to either buy or have someone build me a table to fit the map. This is the plan, anyway. :-)

Had to bump this. I’m looking forward to this set.

2004 UK Revised green (celery)
2009 UK Tan
2010 ANZAC Grey
2012 HBG Neutral Light Grey
2012 HBG Neutral Ivory
1986 AA Classic Forest Green
or 2010 Chinese Yellow-Green

Here is a tactical level WWI game I have been working on.  I play it on the original maps from the A&A Miniatures game (2" hexes) and use the roads as trench lines or mark my laminated maps with a dry erase marker to indicate trench lines.  I have only been playing offense/defense type games where the ratio of offense army points to defense army points is 3:2 and the offense has to capture an objective behind the defense’s trench line or has to open a 3 adjacent hex gap in the defense’s trench line after 10-15 turns.  A 100-120 points for the offense makes for a reasonable sized army.
I bought soft plastic English, French and German HO scale WWI soldiers from the Toy Soldier Company and use cannons from Risk and Micro Machines biplanes.  I also bought machine gun/artillery hard plastic sets from the Toy Soldier Co for the heavy artillery & machine guns that were so devastating in the trench warfare.  I suppose you could use pieces from the A&A Miniatures for the infantry, machine guns, artillery, etc., if you want to try this before investing in the WWI pieces which are about $8/set.
I have play-tested this game several times and revised the rules at least 6 times.  If you give it a try I would appreciate your feeback so that I can continue to improve the game.
Let me know if you can’t open the MS Word rules file.
World War I.doc

@FieldMarshalGames:

$50 for a page of cardboard tokens!?!?!

That’s because they are OOP and collector’s items, just like that Honus Wagner baseball card.

The map to supremacy is horrible and they have nothing like the unit varation or number of terriotries axis and allies has. plus their is no reason the countries are fighting each other