Using Fortress America partisans as alternate USA infantry (or other) in A&A?

Considering different values for infantry depending on power:

Germany 2-2
Russia 2-1, cost 2 (1914 1-1)
Italy 1-1 (1914 1-2)
Japan 1-2
Austria (1914 1-1)
France 1-1 (1914 1-2)
Britain 1-1 (1914 2-1)
USA 2-1
China 0-1

This is a great alternative set up for 1942 anniversary game .  Love the turn order and how the Americans right off the bat get action in the pacific theatre.  I have played this set up twice and have seen the axis and allies both win a game.  I can vouch for this scenario as I had a blast playing it.  If you want more pieces and naval action quickly in the pacific then give this one a try.

Hello Kreuzfeld.

Thanks for the comments and interest.

Here’s what I’ve found in the 6 or 7 games we’ve played so far with this method.

@Aircraft Carriers: Actually, the games we have played so far did not have restrictions on what friendly nations planes could be on what aircraft carrier.  For instance, ANZAC could launch and recover combat move aircraft from a UK or USA carrier.  Carolina made this suggestion and we are going to incorporate it into our “Axis & Allies & Comintern” House Rules the next time we play in early May.  The reasons are the following:

Allies get a little too much of an advantage in the Pacific if they coordinate right.  ANZAC, being basically land-locked if Japan plays right and gets lucky, can just dedicate their IPC’s to pumping out Fighters and TAC’s …. This free’s USA up to just make CV’s and not worry so much about the planes.  …  Limiting CV’s to just being able to launch Combat Moves with their country’s plane balances this

It could also be argued that having carriers launch attacks with their own country’s planes is more historically accurate.  For sure, USA planes were used on UK carriers.  And I wouldn’t be surprised if USA crews even manned some of the planes (that is a TOTAL guess though).  However, most of the time crews trained long hours with the country and navy that they were going to be flying for.  Therefore, the CAG’s were of the same nation as the CV from which they were operating on.

@Casualties:  Any basically “random” method can be used, including all of the one’s you mentioned.  I gave one example and also left it open to other methods that different groups prefer.

@Analysis & Advantage  I fully agree with you.  The GREATEST advantage to this system is for the Allied and Russian players for sure.  In fact, I think it makes for basically balanced game.  The 6 or 7 games we have played so far have had both Axis and Allied/Russian wins.  ….  Here are some additional things we have noticed:

Like you mentioned, Italy/Germany Can Openers are eliminated on the Eastern Front, greatly helping the Russians.  This is SOMEWHAT mitigated by the new rule that doesn’t allow Allied Forces to step on Russian Controlled territories (and vice-versa) to reinforce Russia in the North … But the overall advantage definitely goes to Russia on this one

It is easier for Italy and Germany to combine forces and hold the Med via Gibraltar.  UK –> USA won’t be able to do Can Openers there.  This lets Italy dig into Africa a little bit more.

ANZAC doesn’t get side-showed as easy.  They can pump out subs, destroyers and maybe even the odd cruiser and incorporate them into the UK or USA fleets.  (historically accurate)

I could go on and on … but basically, “It’s a whole new way at looking at the day.”  :-D

I finally found a different HR intended to fix Subs vs planes:
@deslock:

IMO, subs are too weak if they can’t be used as defending fodder (I know some other user agree as I read posts complaining about this).  To illustrate, suppose USA approaches Japan with an invasion force and Japan strikes first:

Japan (attacker):
8 ftr
2 bmb

USA (defender):
2 CV
4 ftr
8 sub
2 dd
4 trn

The rules are fairly clear that in this battle the USA can’t choose to take subs as losses, which means Japan has a ~90% chance of victory (killing everything except for the subs).  I’m contemplating a house rule that states:

Defending subs can be hit by any air/sea units regardless of whether or not an attacking DD is present.  However, if no enemy DD is present, the subs may submerge before any rolling.  If subs attack and no defending DD is present, then defending air units can’t hit subs (even when they’re on the surface).

(I believe that the last two sentences are how it already works, but I included them with the house rule for clarity)

This way subs’ current capabilities are preserved, but they can now be used as defending fodder. Does that seem reasonable to the more experienced players here or does it throw off the game mechanics? (I’ve only played AA50 a couple times)

And there is also this thread about how to limit the DDs vs Subs ratio (same problem):
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6367

@Baron:

It is intended to be played with the starting board.

Fg A2D2M4C8, 1 hit, all hit destroy an enemy plane first, if there is any.
Give +1A/D to any TcB paired with.

TacB A2D3M4C10, 1 hit, gain +1 A/D when paired 1:1 with any Fg or Tank.
Can do a Tactical bombing raid vs AB and NB.

Now, the Fleet Carrier is A0D2M2C16, 2 hits, can now hold up to 3 planes.

This point is for balancing vs OOB full carrier with 2 planes:
2 Fgs= A6D8C20 (.7pt/IPC)  / 1 Fg+1TcB= A7D7C21 (.67pt/IPC)

3 TcBs= A6D9C30 (.5pt/IPC)
2 TcBs + 1 Fg = A7D9C28 (.57pt/IPC), but with Air Supremacy can rise to A10D10C28 (.71pt/IPC)
1TcB+2 Fgs= A7D8C26 (.58pt/IPC), but with Air Supremacy can rise to A8D8C26 (.62pt/IPC)
3 Fgs= A6D6C24 (.5pt/IPC)

There is probably some changes to compensate for the weaker planes units.
For instance, 1 CV with 1 Fg and 1 TcB should be added an additional Fg on board.
You can also put on board a Fleet Carrier 1 TcB or 1 Fg when there is 1 plane on a CV and at least 1 Fg or TcB in a Naval Base nearby.

Since in this HR TacB gets the best defensive value, it should be better to put on the initial board a TcB instead of an OOB Fg and put a Fg instead of a TacB.

@Gargantua:

Isn’t the president “theoretically” a 6 star general?  Because he out ranks the 5 stars? And is in command of the military?

No, because the US Constitution (if I recall correctly) requires the President to be a civilian.  Eisenhower had to resign his five-star rank (which is a lifetime rank) in order to run as President.  I think his rank was re-instated after his term of office ended.

Ok, so I kind of think that sea units currently cost a little too much, here is my alternative pricing for AA50:
The new price is similar to the price of ships in AA50 with the Improved Shipyards Tech, then the prices get even lower if you actually have the Improved ShipYards tech.

Starting Cost … Cost with Improved ShipYards … Ship Type

17 . 15 . Battleships
11 . 09 . Carriers
10 . 08 . Cruisers
07 . 06 . Destroyers
05 . 04 . Transports
05 . 04 . Submarines

The goal of this is to make the Pacific Theater more attractive to Japan and America.
I also think that transports should cost a little less, to make them cost the same as Subs.
My only issue is that with Improved Shipyards Cruisers need to cost 8.5 but i can’t decide which is closer, 8 or 9.  I am also not sure if maybe BB should cost 14 instead of 15 with ImpYards.

What do you think?

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.