Oztea 1914 Alpha 1.3

Hi everyone,

I have been enjoying using these unique units for 1942 Second Edition Tournament Rules.

Russia:
Cavalry c3/a2/d1/m2, can Blitz. Max 5 on the board at any time.
Purpose: Allows Russia some more attack power. Sometimes it is really difficult to buy tanks with the USSR’s limited income but you need still need the ability to move 2. Since they defend at 1, they won’t make the final battle for Moscow any more difficult for Germany. This unit adds some interesting attack possibilities especially if Russia has a decent air force.
HBG has some pretty sweet cavalry sculpts and they have colors that match nicely with the OOB sculpts.

Germany:
Maus Tank c8/a3/d3/m2, 2HP, can Blitz. Max 5 on the board at any time. Can only be built after Round 4. Repairs for free if it starts its turn on a friendly IC.
Purpose: Gives Germany another hard hitting unit. This one is mostly for fun and I don’t think the stats are very overpowered since I’ve put a limit of 5 on the board at any time. I also wanted to give Germany a bonus since I gave Russia Cavalry.
HBG has a Maus tank sculpt I use. I think Germany only built like 4 of these tanks irl but they’re fun to have in the game. If you prefer you can call them heavy tanks and use a sculpt of a tank that was actually produced in earnest.

US:
Marines c3/a1/d2/m1. Attacks at 2 on amphibious assaults (not supportable by artillery on amphibious assaults) Max 5 on the board at any time.
Purpose: Represent the US Marine Corps and allow Island Hopping to be a bit easier for the US player.
I used HBG’s dark green Marines for these units.

To balance these units, I also play with the “Tokyo Express” rule which gives Japanese Destroyers the ability to transport 1 Infantry. I haven’t figured out a good UK bonus which would balance well with these small tweaks.

My group also really enjoys the “free factory” House Rule, which gives each player (besides Russia, we decided the Russian extra factory does nothing but help the Axis) a free IC before the game begins with the condition that it must be placed on a territory worth exactly 1 IPC. Typically, Germany puts theirs in Libya, UK chooses either Persia or Belgian Congo, Japan places theirs on Malaya, and the US chooses Sinkiang (sometimes West Indies if the US player is wary of Japan producing on the free factory). We enjoy this rule because it keeps Africa interesting for quite a while. Sometimes the US will get to place a fighter or two in China.

As another house rule, we often give each player one tech token at the start of the game as well. Russia is typically excluded because the Axis players in the group contend that a) Russia had a dearth of scientists at the time due to purges, and b) they would rather each side only get two tech tokens, and I tend to agree with them.

I hadn’t really given it a thought, but here’s two ideas that just came to mind:

Make it so that the player has to somehow “transfer” the precious metal from the area. This could be as simple as forcing there to be one unit in the zone, or somehow involve a shipping convoy.

Another thing I was thinking that might help with the same old boredom in Africa, is perhaps gold or silver can be used to recruit more African locals and deploy infantry in the colonies.

taamvan,

Excellent analysis on the differences between G40/G42 vs Oztea’s 41. I think in some ways, the 41 setup has “almost” fully realized the potential of the Global board. I like how it initially looks. It makes think of coming into a high level situation brief on in-progress ops. I imagine a table top board would seem very busy at first (I’ve only seen it on triplea, even there it’s cluttered). But like all axis and allies board games, they clean up real quick along the frontiers. Â

I did notice how this setup forces the Axis to stick to realistic solid objectives; but dangles out some “mirages” like Cairo.  I’m of the opposite opinion. I think I’d even evacuate the german tank and 1 infantry on turn 1. Rarely I see people really invest in Cairo and going for the middle east, but on the forums some people talk about it. I’m never good at that.

I don’t know which way the game leans axis or allies. I’ll have to play it out a few more times before I’ll have a definite opinion. Do you remember which sides won at your club? Regardless, it seems very balanced and the US could get real aggressive anywhere it wants immediately. The US does start out with an Army, but Germany has a sizeable European garrison for defense and a nice navy in the Baltic for reinforcing Finland. Russia starts with a destroyer/sub combo in the artic, so they have a chance to kill a german sub in sz 125 and can therefore almost be guaranteed to collect their 5 IPC bonus for a few turns. Also, over time, the allies gain a few more IPCs as the French territories get occupied by allies. Russia might be tempted to stack it’s much larger mobile army at Amur on round 2, but I think it better to move it to Europe.

@Baron:

Do you think this last HR makes Carriers too much vulnerable against Subs if they put 1 Fg and 1 TcB on board?

Does this cutting in half the defensive power of Carriers against Subs should be balance by a no restriction against Subs for Tactical Bombers?

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 can hit Subs anytime by themselves. No need of Destroyers.

But StB units (any number) can only hit submarine units when paired to at least 1 destroyer unit.

Who knows? Some ideas to judge this situation?

Don’t you think it could help simplify the Rules on the subs vs aircrafts?

Because, there is only StBs needing DDs on offence which can be part of any naval combat with Subs ?

Actually, this line of thinking pushed me further away.

Once fighters can no more hit any Subs, I thought why not simply allows both TcB and StB to hit subs without the need of destroyers.
But, at the same time, keeping all the actual stuff on DD and subs.
That would meant that any type of bombers attacking subs only in a given SZ should not be able to do any harm to them since subs keep their Surprise phase and can submerge prior to the regular combat phase. In other terms, DDs will still be needed on many circumstances to get a chance to hit subs.

So with Fg unable to hit them and the Subs submerge still very efficient, giving Bombers the ability to hit subs will not doom them.

That’s how I see things, am I under a false impression?
Do you think it is playable?
Because, it could be much simpler to play subs vs planes than the actual OOB.
Hope you can leave a comment.
Thanks.

Every since A&A 1914 came out, everyone complained about how:

-Historically inaccurate it was (Italy is at war before Austria-Hungary attacks Serbia, ON THE ALLIED SIDE?)
-Lack of railway movement
-How bad Unrestricted Sub warfare was
-How unbalanced it was
-The problem with India
-No colonial fights
-The Cps seemed like a pushover after their initial forces are gone, unlike the epic struggle Germany would put up in other A&As
-Clearly not play tested a lot
-Rules felt icky (Mostly due to being changed from what we all know and love. in particular Russian revo, Air combat, Infantry for every army)

So i was just Curious about what you guys had to ‘fix’ (or add) these.

@BJCard:

Well, the Russians will likely have few artillery and tanks, so if Germany attacked the Russian stack with all its air (5 Fighters, 5 Tac Bombers, 2 Str Bombers) they could kill all the armor in the first round, greatly diminishing the Russian’s defensive capability (or if the Russians were on offence, the German air could kill its armor AND artillery, effectively neutering the attack and dooming Russia).

With the US- Japan starts with 11 Fighters, 8 Tac Bombers, and 2 Str Bombers, a much bigger Navy than the US with its measly 5 Fighters, 1 Tac Bomber, and 1 Str Bomber.  And that’s if the US doesn’t send any aircraft to London.  Just in aircraft alone, the US would need 149 IPCs to achieve parity- or the first 3 full purchases (if Japan did a J3).  No cheap DD/SS fodder- no new carriers (Japan has 3 to the US’s 1).  Japan will always have air superiority and thus always target high value ships (BBs/CVs) first.

I’m not sure where you get that the Allies have the advantage in Global 1940- all the bids are to the Allies (go look at the games being PBF), and many times the bid isn’t even enough.

If you wanted to use the air supremacy rules, it could be good, but you’d have to change the entire setup to reflect the power aircraft now have.

The obvious Allied counter would be to prioritize aircraft production, like in the real war (see: Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway, Battle of Kursk), which isn’t as daunting as your projections would indicate.

Because planes can’t land in newly-conquered territories, each side could use their air units to cherry-pick the other fellow’s best offensive units on their respective turns, resulting in a mutual neutering until somebody finally broke through.

It would be a bloodbath in the sky for the first few rounds, but the Allies have the economic clout to pull off air superiority in the long run… and with this targeting prize, air superiority would really mean something worth fighting for, for a change.

Does anyone knows why the more expensive units (i.e. cruiser 12$ and battleship 20$) are not able to bombard a only one shot on the coast once they win a sea battle offshore?

For me, it seems many times you cannot use their only special capability.
For all other cheaper units their is no such thing.

In what way does this rule is necessary to keep the balance?

In game terms, since a turn is three months long why a cruiser or a BB cannot fight the enemy ships, then help the amphibious assault since you cannot make any debarkment if you are not able to destroy the enemy naval unit?

I’m pretty sure that, during WWII, many cruisers and battleships were able to destroy others defending surface vessels and, some hours later, support with their heavy guns the marines launching an assault on a beach.

If both battles have been simultaneous (like Leyte Gulf Battle) that would be OK, but, in the game, if you loose or retreat no transport can unload their troops.

Anyway, I wish to suggest a different rule to simulate that cruiser and BB can do many things during a three month turn. Or can make a more intensive bombardment if their is no other assignment.

1- Always allow one coastal bombardment per surviving cruiser or battleship after a naval battle and before the amphibious assault (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports). If the BB was damaged during the previous battle, halfed the attack: 1@2 instead of 1@4.
Or we can logically say that a damaged BB have to repair and is unable to support a debarkment. This would make sens.

2- When their is no naval battle, allows 2 rolls of dice per cruiser and BB present (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports) but take only the better result for each one (like LHTR for heavy bomber) .

Example: 3 inf are part of an amphibious combat, so 3 cruisers (A, B, C) out of 4 (D) cruisers offshore can roll dices @3:
A 1,2 / B 3,3 / C 4,5,/ D not allowed
thus making 2 hits even though four dices make 3 and under.

In this way, the expensive units can always be use at their full potential.

Option B: we can instead halfed the attack value of cruiser and BB that made naval battle before a debarkment: cruiser get 1@1/ BB get 1@2.
And a damaged BB have to be repaired and is unable to support a debarkment.

What do you think? Do you have some answers for my previous questions?
Thanks.

I would prefer simply increasing the starting forces in India (and Australia if needed) and allowing UK to build his own IC. Also, If you are playing with the improved techs, UK has the opportunity to directly attempt improved factories. This would improve the defensive qualities of India.

Also just on the side. Has anyone effectively used Australia Industry for UK in AA50? I tried it once, and it helped me keep the rich islands around Australia.

Your AA50 Strategic link is broken.