If you could choose any TWO new unit sculpts, what would they be?

@The-Captain

Sweet!

@The-Captain

Thank you for clarifying!

@Baron:

Young Grasshopper has made a video on YouTube  Cliffside Bunker Channel which explains clearly how it works in Global game.

Then you should read my thread on Convoy Disruption for 1942.2.
There is two mechanics invented to try.

Thanks again, took a look at YG’s YT channel and found the explanation for CD.  That clears it up nicely and now we can add that to the game as well.  Should be quite interesting to add this tactic.  He mentioned that it’s the responsibility of the player to point out to the other players where he can be CD’d.  Only thing I don’t necessarily agree with.  Should be the other person’s responsibility to keep an eye on the board for when/where they can CD.  Other than that it looks pretty straight forward now that I’ve seen it explained.

Taking a look at your thread as well.  :-)

I’m with you on the bonus staying pretty simple. There’s enough going on in Axis and Allies attached to the VC and worded as an objective bonus. Kind of primes players for the concept of an NO generally, if they like to move on to other games like AA50 or the 1940 games, so I like that aspect from a teaching perspective.

Its interesting you mention adding set factories to 1941. After AA50 I became very interested in the idea of just setting up a board with all the factories already in place, and removing the factory as a purchasable unit from that game. 1941 does the job for you in a way, by eliminating the unit from the roster, which makes the game a lot more straightforward. Especially for new players, its just one less thing you have to worry about (where to buy a factory, and how to exploit production etc.) When we first started trying to adapt 1941, we played a number of set factory games.

First idea was to just give each power 1 additional factory, but set in a place that would make sense for the period, but also be relatively balanced/entertaining.

We put it up to choice between a few different factory options for each power…

So for the Russians the question is between Archangel and Karelia?
Archangel factory has a potential upside for Allies in that it’s one space further from the immediate eastern front, but the downside is that its closer to Moscow if Axis control, and also closer to Japan via Urals. Still contested out of sz 4. Karelia provides some interest in that it gives G another early target, and an early foothold that it can use in sz 5 or sz 4. This draws more attention off Caucasus, but I think ultimately Karelia goes to Axis advantage, since Germany can get the drop on it so quickly. Archangel gets another round.

For the Germans: Italy seemed the obvious choice on balance and for the history.

For the British: Egypt, South Africa, or Canada? Its kind of a tough call here too, but the consensus view seemed to be that Egypt was simply too overpowered, and made the med too “do or die.” South Africa also felt a little overpowered, but did have a kind of classic charm to it, reminding me of many games in Classic where the UK would use that strat. On balance though Canada is a lot safer for Allies. It has a less dramatic impact on the opening round, and can be very helpful in rebuilding the royal navy after Germany sweeps it up. UK is under a lot of pressure already with production split up various places. The British are more likely to be torn between purchases if you put it in Canada, which has a kind of novelty.

For the Japanese: Manchuria. Manchuria is the only candidate really from the history, for what the Japanese had going in Chosen and the resources from Manchukuo. This gives Japan 6 production, on par with the other powers and able to match W.US production into the pacific. Basically Japan is less nerfed if they can hold it. The problem here though is the scripted attack on Manchuria on R1. This is the favored play for KJF already, but putting a factory in Manchuria just puts a big target on it. I’m not sure its necessarily a problem because it kind of reminds one of Zhukov in early days, albeit anachronous hehe. Japan can usually retake the territory on J1, so its not much of a problem and takes the first round production boost out. Just sets off an early pacific fight basically, encouraging Russia to send the fighter to China and try the Japan crush gambit.

For the Americans: Szechwan, Philippines, or Hawaii?
I favor Hawaii for the history, and on balance. Philippines is more a gift to Japan. Szechwan in like a built in burma road bonus, but throws off the china balance more dramatically if taken. Hawaii is kind of out of the way, but it returns an American advantage in Pacific production 7 vs 6 Japanese production. Its a target to split Japan off focus on India and Moscow, so I like that aspect.

Basically you could let each player choose if you want to show them the advantages or overpowering exploits of production in different places. Or teach how cliff hangers can tilt to be all one sides over places like Egypt and Szech and Karelia. One additional factory to each player 3 Allies vs 2 Axis, is fairly straightforward. But then you basically revert it to a fixed production type game. It has the advantage of restricting and focusing everybody equally by the inclusion of new production elements.

1941 is a fun board to play around with because it’s set up is so fast and relatively simple play time, provided you include Artillery. The artillery unit is essential for this map to be fun :)

if you do this……just have air bases build air units, naval bases build navy units, and ICs build land units…

And where is the escort carrier. The escort and the heavy cruiser?
I also had merchant marine and german raiders in my game….german player love that boat!

First, I am assuming that all submarines in A & A attack from periscope depth, not the surface.  That is the only way that the first strike rule for submarines can be justified.  If all subs are attacking on the surface then aircraft should be able to attack subs without a destroyer present, and all surface ships should get a free shot at the sub with no chance of reply, as most successful torpedo attacks occurred at ranges of less than 2,000 yards, point blank range for surface guns.  The attack chance is based on a submerged sub attacking a sub running on the surface, not submerged.  WW2 boats spent most of their time on the surface, submerging only to attack or avoid aircraft and surface ships.  The snorkel only came into use by the Germans in mid-1944, and did allow for diesel running while submerged.  If you wish, I will post a detailed discussion of WW2 submarine tactics and operational proceedures.  If you argue that all subs are always submerged, then they should have a movement of 1 sea zone every two turns, to reflect the very low speed of submerged running.  You cannot have it both ways.

OK yes submarines attacked at periscope depth and then immediately submerged at the first sign of trouble. And what the ‘first strike’ idea is supposed to model. However, fighters didn’t have the tactic of attacking subs down until the mid war period and up until that time reconnaissance planes ( in our case bombers) were used as spotters for convoy or for wolf packs to hunt convoy system. Those snorkel types you mentioned are the type XXI Walter U-boat turbine system which could travel in some cases underwater faster than some allied destroyers ( about 16 knots). Also you have to know that a turn in AA is something like 4-6 months which is plenty of time to move around and not really effect its movement. The 2 movement point thing is for play balance issues because if naval vessels had unlimited range it would mess up the game because its already a highly abstracted strategic system.

As for a submerged submarine sinking a submerged submarine, the HMS Venturer sank the U-864 while both were submerged on February 6, 1945.  This is the first recorded case of a submerged sub being sunk by another submerged sub.  Both the US and the UK in the immediate postwar period began the development of hunter-killer subs designed specifically for submerged ASW engagement.  During WW2, British submarines sank 35 enemy submarines.  I will need to check on the totals for the other countries.

I knew you would bring up that example: but the game is representing one submarine as something like 20-40 submarines for each ‘piece’ and that is only one example near the last days of the war. Hardly anything to base a major principle of naval combat on IMO. The game has to reflect what actually happened as a matter of normal affairs during the war . All postwar developments wont help us model WW2.

@Imperious:

subs only fire preemtive when a ship other than a DD or CA ( and sub) is not present as they have no ASW capability. this has not changed. In this case if you have a CA or DD then they fire back.

Thats not my interpertation of the OOB.
I think SS always fire in opening-fire. Presence of DD only allows your casualties to stay and be removed later rather than in opening-fire.

Secondly, I was talking about realism not how it works in the proposed rule. Surely the defending destroyers have more to worry about than the attacking destroyers and can’t fight as well.
+++ what would be better?

My quick solution, pulled out of thin air, is a -1 modifer for DDs wishing to perform ASW rolls. Screening, a relative passive job, however does not cause -1 modifier.
FTR and BMB could also say get -1 modifier for wishing to perform ASW rolls.

Its already generous when you think about it.

If not then when 1 DD + 1 SS attacks 1 DD….the defending DD would basically get to shoot twice while the attacking ships shoot once each. A bit strange.

1 DD provides early warning against submarine attack for whole fleet so casualties are not removed in opening-fire.
Is that realistic?

Air supremacy
When only one side has air units, those air units fire preemptively.
          Land Combat                   Naval Combat
FTR    opening-fire, selective?    opening-fire, selective?
BMR   opening-fire?                   opening-fire?

What about hit allocations?