Historically accurate setup

It is totally accurate. The totals latter are correct. Use the German 26 figure for this purpose. The sources are from books, notes from various sources including WW2 sites.

Use the totals that are after the ratio list, the ones with complete and higher totals.

In the case of Soviets, the far east force was largely mechanized, plus they had a number of mechanized infantry. The sources listed are not complete because some books had the info, but i didn’t write it on that file.

Hello again, everyone,

Sorry I had to post and run Friday, without any follow-up.  So here are a few notes/observations/ideas.  If you want to stick with the ratios for BBs that Larry is using, you’d go with 1-5, instead of 1-4.  I prefer 1-4 because BBs in most navies operated in 2-ship divisions, with two or more divisions to a squadron.  Also, it makes the British fleet large and intimidating, and less likely to be wiped out in a single turn, which goes along with wanting a more historically accurate feel.  This can be balanced somewhat by maybe beefing up the Luftwaffe a bit, if that can be justified by a combination of historical numbers cross-referenced with historical quality.  Also, by rounding .5 or greater up, the Italians and the Japanese get an extra BB each.

By using historical numbers, the US fleet also gets larger, but it is out of play for the first few turns anyway.  Maybe this can be mitigated by a “Pearl Harbor” rule of some sort.  Perhaps if Japan declares war on the US, during the first turn US AAA fire is rolled simultaneous with other units, instead of destroying planes before they can get a shot off.  Also, on the first round of dice rolling, all US units defend with a 1, reverting to their normal defense values on any subsequent rounds.

Using a historically sized French fleet will require a Vichy rule of some sort.  I would say something like the following:  Immediately upon the fall of Paris to the Axis, all French naval units in the Mediterranean are converted to Vichy.  They neither move, attack, nor block movement of either side.  Any surviving French land or air units in Normandy or Southern France are reduced to a single infantry in S. France.  German control markers are placed on S. France, Normandy, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Syria.  French land units in these areas cannot move or attack.  Germany receives all income from these areas.  All other French territories and units become Free French, and income from these areas goes into the Free French pool.  Free French units can be built at British Factories using this money.

If a Vichy area is attacked by the Allies, roll a die.  On a roll of 1-3, all land units in the area and naval units in adjacent sea zones become Free French.  On a roll of 4-5, the units surrender and disband/scuttle themselves, and are removed from the map.  On a roll of 6, they join the Axis, and are replaced with equivalent German units.  If the Axis attack any of these areas, the Vichy treaty is broken, and ALL Vichy areas become Free French, unless captured.  If a land territory is captured by the Axis, roll a die for any adjacent naval units.  On a roll of 1-3, they escape from port and become Free French.  On a roll of 4-5, they are scuttled and removed from play.  On a roll of 6, they are captured, and replaced with the equivalent German unit.

I think I like the idea of defenders being allowed to retreat.  Maybe at the beginning of each round of combat, starting with the second round, the defender can declare he is going to try to retreat any or all of his units.  Any units retreating cannot fire in that round of combat, but any units he left behind as a rear guard can still fire.  Casualties can be taken from the rear guard first, but if the attacker gets more hits than there are rear guard units, they must be taken from the retreating units.  Now, the net effect will be that fewer units will die each turn.  Would this need to be balanced by making units more expensive, in order to keep the map from becoming massively cluttered?

Germany should be able to steal French boats.
UK should be tempted to shoot the French boats because of this.

I don’t know if this would be useful or not, but I have an old copy of 5th edition World in Flames, and it occurred to me once in a drunken stupor that it could be converted to A&A, since they seemed to be similarly scaled.  I started with the Sept. 1939 scenario, and then allowed for likely builds and combat losses through May/June 1940.  I took the average printed combat power of units of each type for each nation to get a multiplier, which I then applied to the actual number of units.  This more or less accounts for differences in quality, since in A&A, infantry is infantry, regardless of whether it represents Chinese conscripts or the German SS.  For naval units, I used the research mentioned in my previous posts.  Fighters and tac bombers include naval air.  If you are not using an optional rule for paratroops, marines, or air transports, just convert them to regular infantry.  This might have to be scaled down if you don’t want cluttered maps, but I’ve given the raw numbers below.  So, if you trust the historical research of Australian Design Group:

France:
22 infantry, 1 mech, 4 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 2 subs, 1 transport

Germany:
36 infantry, 4 mech, 1 para, 8 artillery, 9 tanks, 11 fighters, 6 tacs, 2 bombers, 1 air transport, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 6 subs, 2 transports

Italy:
11 infantry, 1 mech, 5 artillery, 2 tanks, 4 fighters, 4 tacs, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 4 subs, 2 transports

Japan:
32 infantry, 1 mech, 1 marine, 7 artillery, 1 tank, 10 fighters, 9 tacs, 1 bomber, 1 air transport, 3 battleships, 4 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 3 carriers, 2 subs, 4 transports

China:
22 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter

USSR:
19 infantry, 2 mech, 1 para, 4 artillery, 6 tanks, 4 fighters, 3 tacs, 1 air transport, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 5 subs, 1 transport

Commonwealth (includes both maps plus ANZAC)
24 infantry, 2 mech, 1 para, 4 artillery, 2 tanks, 11 fighters, 5 tacs, 1 bomber, 4 battleships, 7 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 2 carriers, 2 subs, 5 transports

USA:
7 infantry, 1 mech, 1 marine, 2 artillery, 1 tank, 7 fighters, 6 tacs, 1 air transport, 4 battleships, 4 cruisers, 7 destroyers, 2 carriers, 3 subs, 4 transports

Optional rules:

Air transports:  // Cost 6 / Move 4 / Attack 0 / Defense 0 // Can airlift one infantry or para during non-combat movement.  Can airdrop one para during combat movement.  If AA guns are present, must first survive AA fire, or both the air transport and para are lost.

Paratroops:  // Cost 5 / Move 1 / Attack 1 (2) / Defense 2 // Can be dropped on enemy territory during combat movement by an air transport.  Attack with a 2 on the first round of combat, and revert to an attack of 1 if the combat lasts more than one round.

Marines:  // Cost 5 / Move 1 / Attack 1 (2) / Defense 2 //  Function as regular infantry in all ways, except they attack with a 2 during amphibious landings.  Unlike paratroops, they retain this attack value until the amphibious combat is complete.

Amphibious landings:  All land units except marines attack with a 1 during the first round of combat during an amphibious landing.  Tanks cannot be paired with tac bombers during the first round to give them their bonus, but fighters can.  Artillery cannot raise the attack value of infantry or marines during the first round of combat.  During subsequent rounds, artillery can pair with marines to raise the marine’s attack to 3.

China raised alot of divisions of poor quality during the war.

That list is from 2004 and was proposed for Advanced Axis and Allies.

the values are correct, and some ships move 3 but that fell out of favor latter.

Just work on setup, and no i do not have d20 list. IMO the game does not need D20

yea but the dice take a long time to roll. Second problem is to gain support for your ideas you got to not step too far outside the box.

I’m not sure that trying to make something different requires you to remain in the box.  Many of the A&A games are lacking for the very reason that they kept the box.  All of these re-issues and yet many games are still plagued with the same issues they had 20 years ago.  ie. the need for bids, unrealistic setups, etc. etc.

Making something totally different might be a nice refreshing change.  I don’t think the issue is needing to stay the same as much as it is needing to be very clear in the operation of the new game concept (and game balance goes without saying).  Clear rules and usable charts go a long way to help players get a firm grasp and make it playable.  The process of attracting people might take longer if the game represents a significant departure, but in many cases it really doesn’t matter.  For many, anything other than a sanctioned A&A game is not an option anyway… those people would rather play A&A then a game that offers a different and/or improved experience.  So at the end of the day they aren’t your target market anyways.  But if people try something different and it works, its following will grow.

Keep going Keodis I’m interested to see what you come up with.  Design it as you envision it.  It can always be rescaled after the fact.

I’m not sure that trying to make something different requires you to remain in the box.  Many of the A&A games are lacking for the very reason that they kept the box.  All of these re-issues and yet many games are still plagued with the same issues they had 20 years ago.  ie. the need for bids, unrealistic setups, etc. etc.

Making something totally different might be a nice refreshing change.  I don’t think the issue is needing to stay the same as much as it is needing to be very clear in the operation of the new game concept (and game balance goes without saying).  Clear rules and usable charts go a long way to help players get a firm grasp and make it playable.  The process of attracting people might take longer if the game represents a significant departure, but in many cases it really doesn’t matter.  For many, anything other than a sanctioned A&A game is not an option anyway… those people would rather play A&A then a game that offers a different and/or improved experience.  So at the end of the day they aren’t your target market anyways.  But if people try something different and it works, its following will grow.

D20 system will not solve any problems regarding those that plague the OOB games as produced. Those problems are due to lack of long term play-testing and people who make incorrect decisions regarding the History and setups, etc. It can still be different with D6 or D12. D12 seems more natural and D20 seems too drastic. Why not D100?