Next Sets from Historical Board Gaming

@general-6-stars I have a physical map that I have made. It’s mostly rules i am trying to develop. Thanks for showing me your map.

Re: 1950 Korea variant?20211219_071801.jpg 20211219_071710.jpg 20211219_071617.jpg

@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.

It is normal cardboard like all proper game maps, but this is 5 x 4 foot map. Don’t draw on it, just buy HBG rail markers

I played my first game of Amerika last night. It was pretty easy to learn once I was finally able to remember which sculpts were the self propelled anti-aircraft units and and which ones were the self propelled artillery units. It took awhile to play because I was carefully going through every step and double checking to make sure I didn’t develop any bad habits as far as the rules go. I can see being able to play a game in under 2 hours including setup if you had 2 or 3 players who already knew how to play. That would be perfect for the lake in the summer when you go into the cabin to wait out a rainstorm. A&A on the other hand would be more of a whole day this is never going to clear up type of game.

It’s a good game and very well made. I picked up the Strategic Markers expansion set with the game but didn’t use any of the extra rules that come with the pieces so I could learn the game first and decide which rules and extra pieces would be appropriate to make it a better game. I did find the map a little small so I am going to get a bigger one for use at home on the big table. I like lots of elbow room and space to line up my tanks without using chips. In the game the Japanese got bogged down in the northwest with the allies holding the line at Hanford Nuclear Research Facility. They had better luck in the south moving inland and taking out Los Alamos NRF. The Germans made it as far as Detroit in the north and Nashville in the south but couldn’t capture Oak Ridge NRF. On the fifth turn the allies were lucky enough to roll big and go first, which meant that they had 2 turns in a row and were able to take back Los Alamos and 3 cities and accumulating enough points to win the game. If the axis would’ve went first on the fifth turn it would have been a different outcome and they might have won on the fifth or sixth turn. It all came down to that one roll…

Fortress America was broken. Did they fix it?

1. IPC Chips; FMG Logo w/ “number” face-up (Since US has a huge IPC count, a 20 IPC chip is needed)

2. Damage Counters; “Damage” Logo face-up

yes exactly!

Sorry I’m late, Adlertag.  +1 Karma

I’ve seen all the boardgame geek stuff.  I was thinking more along the lines of a pdf file.  I’m mostly currious about the “new” techs and commando rules.  I guess I’ll just have to buy it off e-bay if I’m really that interested.