Real value of units

It is more realistic to move warships from one SZ to another.
But, would you retreat more than 1 TT to repair your Tank?
(Land movement are much slower and falling back damaged Tanks while staying in position with Art and Inf make such delay an issue. You also have to compare between planes for the cost. Aircraft mobility and versatility is way more interesting than 2 hits units which have to return to IC for repair.)

IMO, it is easier to consider that such unit are repaired right on place with spare parts.

A different procedure I suggested a while ago is that you can only repair one and have to pick a damaged Tank as casualty before allocating a hit to damage another Tank.

So, instead of 10 Tanks staying on battle until the 11th hits.
A second hits eliminates a first Tank.
This becomes far less effective, but it is easier to follow a single damaged Tank per stack.

However, I did not search on how to calculate such way of allocating damage.

Lets be honest, if you’re playing USSR or a minor nation, all you are really doing is stalling the Axis powers.

Addressing the issue of unit size, individual pieces in Axis & Allies typically depict the Corps or Army level, as I understand it. However, there are a few deviations to depict smaller, independent commands, such as the two British infantry in Hong Kong and the French and British infantry scattered in West Africa south of the Sahara.

I understand the desire to be able to build every type of unit, but I think that scarcity places correct emphasis on those troops’ elite status. The mobilization rule would be a quirk: the Legion has periodically fought on the mainland (as during WWI, for example). Its frequent foreign deployments are rather a reflection of the fact that the Legion’s peculiar non-national composition gives French politicians greater latitude to pursue foreign policy that has some blood cost.

I think that Frogmen should get to roll a d6 against every capital ship, hitting on a 2 or less. They should have no independent combat value because they operated as small units, not at the division level.

When it comes to Marine infantry, the question is whether you view naval units of any type as indicative of fleets (e.g., a Destroyer could stand in for a single capital ship), or whether you want them to represent actual unit types, in which case I don’t think a Cruiser or Battleship should be allowed to carry Marines. Historically speaking, Cruiser divisions sometimes fielded Marine and naval landing parties, but these comprised perhaps slightly over 100 men when multiple ships combined their detachments.

Think about whether you want to confer advantage to certain units only for certain rounds of combat. The difficulty of remembering when and how to roll for them can be partially mitigated by player aids.

One additional unit type for which HBG makes a piece is the Armored Car. This is especially good if you want to game out the inter-war period. I have developed rules allowing attackers to re-roll a die when an Armored Car is present in the attacking force. This is a play on their role as reconnaissance elements. Think about Cavalry, also. Perhaps Cavalry strike harder versus infantry when they outnumber defenders.

I’ve used cards to trigger the appearance of special units denoted by markers. They can also be used to grant nation-specific bonuses for a single round of play, etc. This works better on much larger maps with a game that is expected to go on a while, especially because the cards can be used as interrupts, which prevents players getting bored between turns.

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.

@CWO:

Interesting hypothetical scenario.  It raises all sorts of questions, both from a point of view of weapons technology and politics.

Assuming that WWI had lasted for another 20 years (meaning, I assume, 20 more years after 1918, which brings us to 1938, one year short of the starting date of WWII), weapons technology would certainly have progressed further and faster (though not necessarily in the same directions) than it did historically.  To quote one example as an illustration, just look at the classes of battleships and battlecruisers that many WWI combatants had planned or were actually building at the time the war ended in 1918, but which were then abandoned.  The British, for instance, were planning a class of battleships armed with 18-inch guns that would probably have entered service in the early 1920s; in the real world, it was only in the early 1940s that an 18-inch gun battleship class (the Yamatos) entered service.  Many of the weapons that achieved maturity in WWII existed in WWI, albeit at the infancy stage – notably tanks and aircraft carriers.  The same was true of certain tactics: had the war lasted until 1919, there were plans on the Allied side to mount attacks by massed tanks working in close coordination with motorized infantry and aircraft support…essentially an early version of Blitzkrieg.

However, even though I can see some WWII-type weapons being used on the WWI game board under such a scenario, the part I think is problematic is the political element: the idea that the same 8 powers who are the contestants in the A&A 1914 game could still all be in existence, and still fighting each other, in 1938.  Remember, after all, that three of those states – Tsarist Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire – were already politically and/or economically unstable in 1914.  Russia had already seen one revolution against the Romavov dynasty in 1906, and this had done nothing to persuade Nicolas II to liberalize his regime.  The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a mish-mash of restless ethnic groups led by an elderly ruler who, like Nicolas II, believed in absolute monarchy.  The Ottoman Empire had been in decline for a long time, and its leaders were both divided and paralyzed by indecision.  Frankly, I’m surprised that Russia managed to last till 1917 and the other two until 1918, so I don’t see any of those regimes surviving a further two decades of war.

I said another 20 years was highly improbable for the very reason of political (as well as economic) instability. I highly doubt the war could have gone on for twenty more years without several nations collapsing from the strain.

But as you correctly pointed out, technology would have advanced much faster had the war continued. I know for example that Thompson sub-machine guns were developed during WW1, but never saw action, and that they would later be used in WW2. So let’s say the war only goes on for another 2 or 3 years. This would bring many weapons used in WW2 into the conflict.

Now that we have a somewhat alternate-historical basis, can we design rules for allowing WW2 era A&A units such as TcB, StrB, MechInf, and CVs? As I’ve said, I haven’t actually played 1914, but I know there’s a rule for when tanks can actually be built, could a similar rule be implemented for other units? I plan to buy 1914 and try it out.

Cavalry should attack on a 1, defend on a 1, and move at a 2. They could be combined with other units to up their abilities. For example, they could defend on a 2 if paired with infantry. THey could attack on a 2 if attacking with infantry. They should cost 3 IPCs.

The real role of cavalry should be to harass the enemy. If cavalry are in a battle, the other units cannot retreat nor engage another contested territory until the Cavalry are cleared out of that territory. In effect the unit is stuck there. This would simulate cavalry cutting supply lines and communications etc.

Also, cavalry could disrupt IPCs by entering into a vacant territory and in effect scorching the earth. The territory would lose 1 IPC for every Cavalry performing this task in that territory. A marker could be used to denote the territories new value. Cavalry themselves could not conquer a territory by themselves. They would need to be paired with an infantry.

On the map, all the territories on the Western front are occupied so this tactic would not really be used. However on the Eastern Front there are a couple of open territories mainly in Russia where it could be used.  Also, The middle east and Africa are more wide open. This rule conjures up images of Lawrence of Arabia!

Hmmm,

NEW sculps, huh. Well, without a doubt I want:

1.) An AIRBASE that’s 3-D but doesn’t have too big a “footprint”.
2.) A NAVAL BASE "      "    "      "        "    "    "  "        "      .

I think almost ALL of us have been dreaming of these for years! The new “markers” aren’t
3-D. I want a 3-D unit like the Factories(I.C.) in the old original A&A games. The Risk game has some that work great for Minor I.C.'s.

Please Santa(HBG), I’ve been a good soldier(grin).

“Tall Paul”

Page 16 and 17

Self-propelled Artillery (optional unit) You may build Self-propelled Artillery for 5 IPC. They attack
at 3, defend at 2, and move 2. They increase Infantry’s attack by 1 on a 1-to-1 basis.

Its a technology. Germany has 3 boxes developed and Soviets one.