Larry Harris's 41 Global set up

@baron-Münchhausen

I reviewed the 2 hits Battleship values to 2.5 multiplier factor.
It is an approximation but this is easier to use this value if you need to assess between two naval fleet during a live game with no AACalc allowed.

It is based on the very even (almost 50%-50% survival equilibrium ) combat between 1 Destroyer @2 and 1 Cruiser @3 against 1 Battleship, 2 hits @4.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=1&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=1&dCru=1&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

1 Destroyer @2 and 1 Cruiser @3
5 pips * 2 hits = 10 pips*hits

1 Battleship, 2 hits @4.
4 pips * 1 BB worth 2.5 hits = 10 pips*hits

@caesar-seriona Historically Mussolini declares war when there is no doubt Paris is going to fall to Germany.In a G40 game Germany often combat moves through N.Italy and NCM air units to S.Italy,both of which require Italy to be not neutral.
So to keep Italy neutral until UKs turn Germany would need to retreat from Paris{leave it for Italy to take perhaps}and NOT enter Italian territory G1.

@barney:

wow ! Nice looking map SS

yea Baron I was thinking EP /Belarus junction for the east border, west one would be correct. I don’t think it would change anything though. Just a visual thing. Pretty cool how you did that though : )

Thanks goes to IL. Its his 2005 WW2 map.

Also, it looks like you’ve made submarines 1 IPC cheaper and given them a convoy raiding ability, without any real compensating disadvantages. You’ve changed the submerge ability, but on balance I think the submerge ability is still equally powerful. I think submarines are already a pretty good buy OOB at 6 IPCs, in part because they are the cheapest ship and therefore often the best available fodder.

One thing to know about Subs A2first strike A1 C5 is that loosing them on defense as fodder, is a pretty good news to the attacker. Because, if they submerge, they will gets a much better attack factor than DDs, and for 5 IPCs, pretty cheap to buy. Also, you cannot use them as fodder against other sub.
So, on offence, it is better to lose DDs because A2 first strike should be preserved.
On defense, it is better to use your Sub later, hence Submerging eventually.
And Subs cannot hit subs so you must pick DD as fodder instead.

@phd_angel

Thanks so much! Sorry for the delayed response here. I was on parental leave with my son, so I wasn’t online much the last few months!

I definitely appreciate the feedback. I’m with you, my hope for any houserule is to keep a semblance of realism while working out whatever game play issues there were that made the houserule pop up in the first place!

The uncertainty of allegiances pre-battle is quite interesting. But I try to minimize dice randomness. IRL (in real life), Vichy troops (just like Italians) surrendered as soon as seeing enemy superiority: thus, in the game, if Allies send more land + air units than defending Vichy units, there is no battle but surrender. Or, make it unlikely that a battle would ensue (for example, need to roll a 1).

I definitely agree overall here, I think this one got away from A&A mechanics the most. Part of me didn’t want to make it completely against the Axis, but I think something like you suggest on bringing more men (or maybe twice as many), would void any combat.

IPC system, however, is historically inaccurate (as in most, if not all, Vichy mods I’ve seen): IRL, Nazi Germany profited handsomely on Vichy which had to quite richly sustain 300,000 German troops stationed in Northern France! So, in the game, Germany should actually gain IPC bonus, whereas Vichy and Free France gain nothing. How much, certainly 3 IPC, at least.

I also get your point here. However, the main goal for me in creating the Vichy France rule was an overwhelming thought by players that the Axis has too great an advantage. By creating Vichy in this scenario it weakens the Axis some by taking away from them, as well as adding to the Allies by adding the Free French. I think if we were to give the Germans more IPC’s, it takes away the point of creating the rule in the first place (which again, was to try and help weaken the OOB Axis advantages).

Finally, Germany never fought Vichy. IRL, with Operation Torch, Germany simply occupied Vichy in 1942, with no resistance whatsoever. Vichy units were disbanded. That can be also the case in the game.

I also agree that combat did not really happen, at least on a large scale. I suppose I don’t know enough to understand every potential action that might have happened, no matter how small. This was again something designed to make the German player think twice before just invading the Vichy territories. It’s going to cost them a bit. Again, just a device to hopefully help balance.

I personally don’t like the idea of bids at the beginning of a game. We try and either house rule to help change, or just deal with it how we can. But yeah, the main hope/goal here was to have a somewhat realistic scenario, while also hopefully tipping the scales a bit away from the Axis, while not ruining gameplay and design too much.

Thanks so much for your input! Hope 2021 is treating you well!

Chris

Here is a saved game “rough draft” edit of the China set up above, for use with TripleA. Right now it uses the standard turn order, but that can altered if desired. All edits to achieve the set up are logged in the game history.

Note how China is no longer a separate nation but instead placed under direct USA control.
Check the stats column for the total Money, Production, and TUV for the United States.

Burma units may be edited into the appropriate territories per the rules above.

There are no co-located units here, all roundel substitutions in play according to the rules above, including for the Commonwealth (represented here in the save edit by ANZAC at 20, Eire south Africa etc.

It is up to the player to enforce the production rules via the edit mode, or to adjust territory possession as necessary (in the case of liberated territories). Example if Japan takes Hunan, and the Americans then liberate it, the game will show Hunan as Chinese, edit possession back to United states. The same thing for the Commonwealth, or if UK pacific territories reappear after conquest/liberation, edit them back to the appropriate power. Otherwise it works as normal, just remember to enforce the factories at 10, 5, 3.

Edit any Soviet Japan Nap conditions you wish.

If no DoW is desired, then you can have all Axis declare in the first round.

VC or Combat bonuses may be edited into the IPC totals at the end of the turn to augment or replace NOs if desired.

Savegame attached below… the next step would be to create an xml gamefile reflecting the new production units, and the Commonwealth faction (while removing UK pacific and China). Eliminate the politics phase, and create a simple NO option on the VCs. Adjust the turn order to the one outlined above.

Halifax china mod no-colocation.jpg
G40 Halifax 2 China to USA.tsvg

@oztea:

I like this idea a lot. I had a similar idea a while back, wherein to win you had to get to a certain number of points. 2 points for each capital, 1 point for each non capital VC, and 1 point for each National Objective you satisfied this turn.

You calculate the axis total, and the allied total.

Lets spit ball, the axis wins if they have 20 points at then end of turns 1-5
or they win if they have 18 points at the end of turns 6-10
or they win if they have 16 points at the end of any turn after 11 they win.

The Allies would win if the axis falls below 10 points at the end of turns 1-5.
Or if they fall below 12 points at the end of turn 6-10
Or if they fall below 14 points at the end of any turn after 11.

I’m gonna have to digest this and see how the math works in different situations, regardless… it’s great to hear from someone that believes in the points per city formula, and I really like the idea of points for objectives as well.

You just know that everyone’s Sealion plans will go up in smoke if Larry gives us a workable SBR rule in Alfa+3.