D12 with Expanded Land Units

You need to have like 10 posts to site before you can put anything on. Just go reply to other threads and  also here tell us some of the things you have.

You only have 1 post. 9 to go.

Welcome to site.  :-)

Imperious Leader, SS, and myself have been discussing “Call Shots”, or as I (still) think of them: “pick the hit unit on 1”, in my thread about adding Heavy Artillery to Classic A&A. I pasted in the full transcript below. I thought I would break this out to its own conversation.

So far, what is being discussed as a Call Shot is when a player rolls a 1 when attacking with Battleships, Tactical Bombers, or Heavy Artillery, the player who rolls the one picks the unit taken as a loss.

I am very skeptical of Call Shots. I will admit that I haven’t played with such rules so I don’t have any personal experience. And while I wouldn’t call it game-breaking to give certain units special powers when I roll a 1 for your attack, it just doesn’t sit well in my mind.

So I thought I would make this a separate topic so that others could chime in. I’m willing to be convinced and admit that I do need to try it out. But I also doubt that I’m the only one for whom the thought of my opponent picking my losses leaves a bad taste in my mouth…

-Midnight_Reaper

Full transcript:
@SS:

@Midnight_Reaper:

@SS:

@Midnight_Reaper:

@Imperious:

1 on Attack roll you pick the target with no return fire

Try it one of two ways:

what we call a “call shot” pick land unit as loss alternatively if you roll a one, defender chooses loss and that unit cant fire back

you will like one of these options

I would have to try them out before I could give a full opinion of them. My question to you is: why the emphasis on ‘pick the hit unit on 1’ rules? Is this a new addition to the meta of house rules here? Submarines have pretty much also fought this way, but I’ve previously seen proposed house rules for Tac Bombers to ‘pick their hit on 1’. Is this becoming a thing?

Should I start a new thread to ask about the popularity and usefulness of ‘pick your hit on 1’ critical strike rules?

-Midnight_Reaper

I have in my WW2 40 game Tac (Dive) bombers  D12  A7 D4 M4 C10 roll a 2 or less on A and D can pick target with no return shot for ground and naval. The 2 or less roll hit is for more of a accurate shot on a piece. So I use the Tac as a 2 different scenario.

Also in one of my 39 games there are Dive Bombers and Naval Figs that can pick the target on a 4 (Dive) or 1 (Fig) but the defender still gets a return shot while the attacker gets to pick the piece.
Pretty much these pieces are in just the 39 games and anybody that has housed ruled there game (G40 OOB) but just a few if any. From what I’ve seen posted on site anyway.

It must have been your Tac Bomber rules that I read. It just seems like the idea of “He shoots, he scores, he crits, he picks the casualty!” has become something I’ve noticed of late. As I’ve said before, I’m not a big fan of that idea in the abstract, but I will admit to really needing to try it out for real before I can truly say that I don’t like it at all.

-Midnight_Reaper

The main reason for Tac Bombers to have this call shot is for both ground and naval attacks plus it gets the Tac Bomber more involved in the game. There like the Cruiser. Nobody really buys them. Thats also why my Cruiser is (D12)  A7 D7 M2 C9. (but you need to lower your destroyers 1 value in A and D). So Destroyers would be A3 D3.  Its a good boost for Anzac, FEC and Italy. As I stated before you need to play test everything.

You could try with the defender at least gets a return shot if you have your doubts.

@SS:

@Imperious:

My question to you is: why the emphasis on ‘pick the hit unit on 1’ rules?

This again is what we call : Call shot

Having something that breaks up the idea that the loser of the unit can choose whatever he wants as a combat loss is a good thing. The artillery units generally carpet bomb whole areas of the battlefield, and Heavy Artillery doing the most damage. Second having such a unit makes it very valuable in the game, by playing you will find out. Thirdly its really fun and i would further suggest the Battleship have this capability. Reason: because the BB has the guns of the greatest range and can shoot targets before they can fire back as they need to be closer to even have a chance.

Oh great IL. Now I got to add this to my Battleships in games !  :-D

Death Heads plays by me and he wanted the no return shot from Battleships and Cruisers  for 39 game and we played 2 games that way but the rest of guys in group didn’t want it. Go figure. I can at least see the Battleship Bombardment hit gets a no return shot. its like pulling teeth with some people but what it is is what it is.  :wink:

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

About cost balance of Elite/Marines, here is a first point:

The 4 IPCs and 7 IPCs Marines unit transportation cost is relatively balance on the long run, when a player can use for a second time some transports.
After the first travel, where it is better for Marines unit, the transportation ratio is reversing toward regular units.

FIRST TRAVEL                                                        / SECOND TRAVEL, same transport
Cost ratio for Regular unit transportation:
3 (transport + Inf + Inf)                                                 3 (Inf + Inf)
3 (7+3+3) = 39 IPCs /6 grounds = 6.5 IPCs/unit  /  3(3+3)= 18 IPCs +39 = 57 IPCs/12= 4.75 IPCs/unit

2 (transport + Inf + Tnk) + 1 (transport + Inf + Inf)        (4 Inf + 2 Tnk)
2*(7+3+6) + 1*(7+3+3)= 45 /6 units = 7.5 IPCs/unit  /  12 + 12 = 24 IPCs + 45 = 69 IPCs /12 = 5.75 IPCs/unit

Cost ratio for Marines unit transportation:
2 (transport + Inf + Inf + Inf)                                        2 (Inf + Inf + Inf)
2*(7+4+4+4)= 38 /6 units = 6.33 IPCs/unit             /      2*(4+4+4)= 24 IPCs + 38 = 62 IPCs /12 = 5.167 IPCs/unit

2 (transport + Inf + Inf+ Tnk)                                       2 (Inf + Inf + Tnk)
2*(7+4+4+7)= 44 / 6 units = 7.33 IPcs/unit            /      2*(4+4+7)= 30 IPCs + 44 = 74 IPCs /12 = 6.167 IPCs/unit

So, after a second travel, with the same 12 units the transportation ratio is improving for regular units compared to Marines ones:

for 12 Infs vs 12 Marines Infs =  4.75 vs 5.167 IPCs/unit.

for 8 Infs+ 4 Tnks vs 8 Marines Infs + 4 Marines Tnks = 5.75 vs 6.167 IPCs/unit.

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 :)

So when they get dropped in an area with 1 enemy infantry, how do they fight anybody?

Didn’t think of this happening. :| I guess you’d just have to have at least 1 defending unit fighting at any one time, regardless of the amount of paras.

Airborne can be considered “elite” troops however, but to mix them like this is not realistic.
Marines are special troops trained for sea invasions and are also “elite” but not in the same task as above.

I admit that realism is compromised here, but if elite infantry are allowed to fill all these roles, it will mean less unit types and therefore less compexity. Believe me when I say I’m still all for historical accuracy and realism, this is just my take on things.

Thanks, I suppose I really should have looked on the box.

how about this… 100 IPC, target country becomes yours! :D