Simultaneous A&A

@Argothair:

Should it take more turns, in general, to move a basic unit by land, by sea, or by air? Why?

For whatever it’s worth, sea transporation and land transportation and air transportation in the real world exist on a continuum in which speed is inversely proportional to tonnage.  Shipping by sea is (and has been since ancient times) the cheapest way to move vast quantities of goods over great distances, giant supertankers being a good example of this principle, but it has the disadvantage of being slow and (for obvious reasons) of being limited to oceans and seas and coastlines and certain rivers.  Shipping by air is the fastest method, but it’s expensive and it involves much smaller payloads; it also has limitations imposed by landing strip requirements.  Helicopters are more flexible in this regard than fixed-wing aircraft, but they have terrible fuel consumption, a short range, high maintenance costs and small payload capacities.  Transporation by land is roughly half-way between those two extremes.  Of the two land options, rail shipping is in many ways superior because combines fairly high speed with low fuel consumption and large payload capacity, but it’s limited to places where rail lines exist.  Trucking is more versatile because there are more roads in more places than rail lines, and in a pinch some trucks can operate off-road, but they’re not as efficient at moving tonnage than trains.

[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

@userx:

@Baron:

I would rather prefer to limit them to their role of AA gun but, specialy for Germany, it seems they used a lot their 88mm AAA as antitank gun (El Alamein battle, i.e.).

I like that because you are correct, in Real Live, AA was just high-velocity ammo pointed at the sky, point it at a tank like the Germans did, it became an effective anti-tank.

I like the idea of taking out tank and/or armor for the pre-combat AA roll.

I don’t know if it would be unbalanced but I think I will try this next game

Thank you

I just learned that Germans put their Flak 88 on tracks and plates so it becomes the Tiger (Mark VI) and deliver them for the Battle of Kursk in 1943.
This gun seems quite an invention.

There are both on Larry Harris’ site IIRC.

Are you working on a setup for this? I’d be willing to try it out as long as it doesn’t alter the OOB map at all.

These are just proposed for now, the goal is to reduce the incentive of a J1 DOW and to reduce incentive of an India crush, promoting a more global game.

Placement changes:

Removal of UK BB and 2 transports in SZ 37, replaced with a cruiser. Addition of a UK BB and 1 transport in SZ 39
Reason: Slow down UK DEI expansion and decrease J1 DOW incentive. Replacement of US bomber at Philippines with tac fighter.
Reason: increase SZ defense, also makes it harder to retreat the plane. Replacement of US transport with a destroyer in SZ 26
Reason: reduce dicey J1 pearl grab and sneaky sub J1 attack Addition of Minor IC to Manchuria
Reason: allow japan more build slots

NO changes
Removal of UK Kwangtung & Malaya NO, want to replace it with something but unsure of what.

ANZAC occupation of original jap territory to be for every round.

Replacement of US NO of Phi, to 3 of the following: Phi, Wake, Midway, Pearl.

Replacement of US NO of Iwo and Oki to 2 of the following: Iwo, Oki, Carolinas.

Replacement of Japan Haw NO to any 1 of the following: Haw, Mid, Wake.

Any thoughts.

In your setup chart, there are only setups for vichy and minor countries. Can you put up setups for the major powers?

Thanks for your imput.

I included the critical strike on grounded aircraft to give the attacker reason to get involved in a dogfight seeing how deffending aircraft hit @4. The critical strike is @1 and for the first round only, I believe attackers shouldn’t get a disadvantage for being agressive. Without the critical strike, players ask themselves why should I attack with my valuable aircraft and get all the odds against me.

I don’t enjoy changing the attack and defend capabilities of any units, I believe the game is difficult enough without trying to calculate all the different changes for any given senerio. for example: Fighters attack @3 except when escorting and except in dogfights and except on carriers and except….ect.ect.ect. (you get my point).

I am still tweeking the merchant convoy rules when transporting supply chips however, this is a major aspect of my rules and it must be handled with care to balance the game. On one hand, the allies have enough to do, what with keeping up with with the axis agression during the first 4 rounds and on the other hand it is too much of a factor to just ignore the importance of the merchant shipping lanes. For example: if I were the supreame commander for Germany during the war, I would never have shiffted towards bombing London or even think about opperation Sea Lion when they were so close to starving the little Island. Non the less the rule is still a work in progress… any Ideas?

I might think about a rule for the Gibralter however, I don’t want to limit the Italian fleet entering the Black Sea. That would only limit them to Africa and I want the Italian player to have options.

As for my Tech charts, I believe that if your going to have the kind of game ender like a nuke just for historic reasons, I would prefer to limit it to one Nation (U.S) and still leave it to chance of getting that advantage. As for Nations limited to thier own charts, I have found in my games that players really think hard about what Nation they wish to play at the begining of the game because they want to play with some charts but don’t want to be up against others. One aspect that I have found very important is giving each nation one free chance per turn to get a tech, this way techs are always a factor in the game while still rewarding others for buying extra chances.

I have a book where I have cut and pasted the Axis and Allies rules into a word document and have added my own rules to make everything more compleate to the newbies I play with. It took alot of work and I think it looks nice, I could e-mail you a copy if you like and that way you can edit it to your own house rules, the good thing is that most of the work is done for you. Just send me a personal message with your email address… I think you would like it.