1939 Scenario for the 1942.2 Map and Pieces

Witt

Italy: 8.
South: 2 Inf, AA and Ft
North: inf, Art, Tank, AA, FT.
Sicily: 1 Inf.
Yugo (German controlled)1 Inf.
Albania: 1 Inf.
SZ95: Cruiser.
SZ96: BT and Sub.

Ansac: 10.
NSW: 2 Inf and AA.
Queensland: 2 Inf, Art and FT.
Western: 1 Inf.
NZ: 1 Inf and FT.
New Guinea: 1 Inf, with an American one.
Egypt: 1 Inf.
SZ37: Sub.
SZ62: CR, DD and TT.

France 0 (5).
Algeria (US) and Morocco(US) 1 Inf each.
Syria (French) 1 Inf.
FWAfrica: (French) 1 Inf.
UK: 2 Inf and FT.
SZ72: DD.
SZ83: CR.

Young Grasshopper

@Argothair:

Young Grasshopper, thanks for the kind words, and good luck with your renovations!

When you have time, I’m curious to hear what kinds of game-play and strategies you are looking to get out of your 1943 scenario. Where do you see the game going, and what interests you about it? I’ve seen 1944 “fall of the Reich” scenarios where the Axis players ‘win’ if they stave off defeat longer than their historical counterparts, but I’ve never seen a 1943 scenario. If the game setup starts in spring 1943, after the surrender of Tunisia, after the German defeat at Kursk, and after the defeat of the Japanese navy at Midway, then how can the Axis hope to win? If the Axis are not supposed to win, will people really enjoy roleplaying that many turns of the Axis being pushed back to Berlin and Tokyo? What is it that you want the 1943 scenario to offer to players? (Evidently wittmann thinks he’s figured that out – you’ve got at least one loyal fan of your idea!)

Hey Argo,

You said spring 1943, is it possible to have a 1943 date and it be before Tunisia, Midway, and Kursk? My idea is simply for originality in the title as 1939, 1940, 1941, and 1942 have all been used in the titles of various varients.

Frederick II

Hey wittmann, good job so far and it looks like Libya and Tobruk are empty are they up for grabs?

Argothair

You have some flexibility, Young Grasshopper, but not much. Let’s say you try a January 1, 1943 start date.

At that point, the Americans had already gained naval dominance in the Pacific at the Battle of Midway back in the summer of 1942, and the Americans were massively outproducing the Japanese all through the summer and fall of 1942, so the Imperial Japanese Navy is going to be outnumbered roughly 2:1 vs. the US Pacific Fleet if you want any kind of historical realism. What the Japanese still had going for them was control of a middle and inner layer of defensive islands – you could give Japan some infantry and some land-based fighters on Iwo Jima, the Mariana Islands, Palau, and New Guinea, and you could leave the American transports back in Hawaii or even San Francisco, to show the difficulty in transporting troops over the entire Pacific Ocean.

In Africa, the Allies have seized Morocco, Algeria, and Libya. You can leave Tunisia in German hands, but it wasn’t held very strongly – it’s not really a useful beachhead; the Germans couldn’t afford to reinforce it, much less counterattack, without dangerously draining forces needed to occupy France or occupy the Balkans. Even if you leave the Germans in Tunisia, with American, British, and French forces all converging on Tunis, it’s only a matter of time until Germany gets pushed out of Africa.

On the eastern front, the Germans were crushed at the battle of Stalingrad, but they still held Rostov and the Caucuses in force, which makes for an interesting opportunity for the Germans to push forward. In real life, the Germans sensibly retreated from the Caucuses, but they could have doubled down with their last remaining reserves on the eastern front to try for Round 2 in Stalingrad, or to try to break into Persia and Iraq. The German front line at the time would have been something like Baltics - Belarus - Bryansk - Rostov - Caucuses. It’s a good front line, but the Russians are mustering a very large counterattack that will almost certainly break that line. The Germans could plausibly take Leningrad, Stalingrad, and maybe even Persia, but even if all of those battles went well, they would not have any realistic opportunities for breaking through to Moscow for at least another 4-6 turns, by which point the Allies are almost certainly sitting in Paris and Rome and threatening Warsaw.

The Japanese could plausibly have crushed the Chinese resistance in 1943 if they had poured additional tanks into the region instead of reinforcing their barrier island chains; it’s unclear if that would have had any serious effect on the defense of Moscow. As accurately reflected on the 1940 Pacific map, Moscow is 7 turns away from the Japanese industrial complexes on the eastern coast of china – even if China were totally undefended, it’s hard for Japan to move significant forces all the way through China and into Russia.

So, long story short, I think you could make an interesting game out of a January 1, 1943 starting setup, but you would need different victory conditions to give the Axis a chance at winning – maybe an economic victory condition, like the Axis win if they control 100 IPCs (I have no idea of the proper number), or something like that. The Axis could have made some major economic gains against the allies if they had a good year in 19432, but they just aren’t in a position to realistically assault more than a couple of victory cities in January 1, 1943, let alone in a position to conquer any Allied capitals.

CWO Marc

Good assessment of the general war situation that existed in 1943, Argothair. For an A&A game to be set in 1943, it would have to take one of two approaches: either realistically model the situation that existed in 1943 (meaning that the Axis would be in a worse starting position than in 1941 or 1942), or it would have to be some kind of alternate-history scenario (which could achieve game balance at the price of historical accuracy).

That being said, 1943 does fall within the middle phase of WWII, so the date might still allow for a decent slugging match. The period from 1939 to about mid-1942 was the period when the Axis was in the driver’s seat. During 1944 and 1945, the Allies were clearly in the driver’s seat. The period between those two time brackets was the “deep war” phase during which, from the Allied point of view, the Axis advance had been checked and partially rolled back but victory was by no means yet certain. In Europe, Germany still had some strategic options open to it (as Kursk in 1943 and the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 were to show), but those options were much more limited than in 1942. In the Pacific, Japan was in a somewhat worse position (it made no land conquests after its failed attempt at Guadalcanal), but it did have the resources for two major rolls of the dice at sea: the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944 and the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October of the same year.

Assuming one were trying to model historical reality accurately for a 1943 scenario, it would help to start as early in 1943 as possible because the problems for the Axis got worse and worse as the year progressed. Just off the top of my head, I’d say that if I had to design a 1943 scenario, I’d pick February (specifically February 10) as my starting date: 8 days after the fall of Stalingrad and 1 day after Guadalcanal was declared secured by the Americans. Those were two pivotal moments, so I’d choose mid-February 1943 in much the same way as Larry chose to start his Europe 1940 scenario right after the evacuation of Dunkirk. I’m not sure what I’d do in terms of victory conditions or force allocations, but conceptually the date seems like a workable candidate.

Young Grasshopper

Those are both great posts, thanks guys… I don’t have time tonight to respond in detail and I don’t want to hijack Argo’s thread, all I can say is the term 1943 “Deep War” would make an awesome game title.

Frederick II

Are we talking about the 1939 scenario in 1942.2 or are talking about 1943?

Witt

@Frederick:

Hey wittmann, good job so far and it looks like Libya and Tobruk are empty are they up for grabs?

They are UK controlled, sorry for the omission. (Remember I was working from a AAA map.)
The Axis have no TTs and Italy’s fleet should not be able to defeat te joint Allied one. That was the plan, anyway!
It probably makes for a boring game for the Axis, unless, like me, you are a weird masochist.

CWO Marc

@Young:

Those are both great posts, thanks guys… I don’t have time tonight to respond in detail and I don’t want to hijack Argo’s thread, all I can say is the term 1943 “Deep War” would make an awesome game title.

Good idea YG – I’ll go have a look at that new thread.

Incidentally, the phrase “deep war” that I mentioned is a quote from Ilya Ehrenburg’s book The War, 1941-1945: “We speak of deep night, deep autumn; when I think back to the year 1943 I feel like saying: ‘deep war’.” Richard Overy quoted it at the beginning of one of the chapters in his book Why The Allies Won – the chapter titled “Deep War: Stalingrad and Kursk.”

Argothair

Does anyone have comments on the 1939 scenario?

I’m glad this thread helped gather some ideas for a 1943 scenario, which is being discussed at http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36048.0. I have been contributing to the 1943 thread and I will continue to do so. However, I am also very interested in comments on the 1939 scenario if anyone has them!

Thanks,
Argo

Black_Elk

I like the handling of neutrals and the concept of USA entry is fairly brilliant. I actually wish G40 was conceived with such an idea for the Americans in mind, instead of a hard rules prohibition on US entry until DoW. The chip and roll method seems more entertaining to me from a gameplay perspective.

1942.2 seems a good choice, its probably a more manageable board than Global for a whole number of reasons, and likely easier to adapt for an alternative start date, since the total number of units and territories and player nations you have to manage are all fewer than in the 1940 games. 1942.2 is still in print and more readily available ie cheaper than the 1940 maps.

I also like how you used the factory damage mechanic to represent the surprise onset of war and as a way to manage the pace of the Allied build.

I like 39 for a mod, the appeal is that you get to choose from the outset what sort of warpath to pursue, without getting pigeonholed into an overly historical play pattern. Its cool for the gameplay, since it allows you to explore more what ifs, during the critical opening phases of the war.

Black_Elk

Ps. The thing I like most about the mod is the detailed write up and rationale for the additional rules.

I would encourage a tripleA scenario! Basically the only thing that you couldn’t handle right now would be the neutral/allied chip idea for USA. Though this could be tracked independently and player enforced (the game has a free dice roll feature which could be used to determine whether USA is at war or not.) The defection idea could also be handled as a free roll, if its 50/50 that’s easy enough on a 1d6, and then edit control of the territory it to the opponent on the fly if they hit at a 3 or less for example. Any value that we can handle with six sided dice, can be achieved with the free roll and then player enforced, whatever the rule calls for.

I’m a bad boardgamer sometimes, in that set-up charts are harder for me to parse at a glance than a visual. And better still would be a visual that I can play haha.

You could draft this up in the edit mode of tripleA, by assigning the desired control of territories to the 5 main nations. Edit mode also allows you to assign any territory to the “neutral” category. Which doesn’t quite capture the full mechanic you’re after but still gives the visual.

Here is an example of what I mean…

image of 1939 edit mod of 1942.2 attached below. I didn’t assign the units or anything, just changed some possessions around in Europe to make them neutral for a quick example. But you could build out the skeleton of the mod using this system and it might help to gather more general feedback, since potential players could check it quickly with the familiar map. :)

Once the skeleton is up, you could probably do the other stuff via xml edits (turn order etc.) to create a functional game that we can beta test or tweak.

Argothair

Hi Black_Elk,

Thanks for the feedback! Unfortunately, I’m not willing to use TripleA or the TripleA xml code – I’m a recovering videogame addict, and TripleA was one of the games I was hooked on last time I fell off the wagon. You, or anyone else who reads this, is more than welcome to transfer my notes into TripleA and/or to play the scenario online. I’m just not going to be able to join you.

However, I’m giving you the next best thing: photos.

Argothair

A couple more photos.

CWO Marc

Thanks for the photos. Out of curiosity, what do the yellow meeples represent? The minor colonial powers?

Argothair

I used blue Risk pieces for the French neutrals, white Risk pieces for the true neutrals, and yellow meeples for the Dutch neutral infantry.

Frederick II

Good idea on the Risk pieces but where did you get aircraft for France or the neutrals?

Argothair

So I finally did a short playtest for this variant, on low luck, and most of the opening battles came out roughly the way I wanted. It was fun! As a result of the playtest, I’ve given Rome and Tokyo 1 extra infantry each, removed one Russian infantry and one Russian tank, and moved the Russian fighter from Buryatia to Yakutsk so it’s not such an easy target. I also switched the USA entry roll from 3d6 to 4d6. All these changes are now reflected in my (modified) original post.

I also tweaked the USA setup – instead of starting the USA factories with (double) maximum damage and full income, I’m starting the USA with (single) full damage and -20 IPC/turn income. The -20 IPC/turn penalty goes away when the USA enters the war. This change was necessary to avoid giving the USA a huge artificial incentive to drop a factory in the Philippines on A1 (which in turn would give the Japanese a huge artificial incentive to attack the Philippines on J1, screwing up the USA entry clock by directly attacking a US territory). The USA can still choose to build a factory in the Philippines, and it’s not a bad idea, but at least now it’s not strategically required. The changes also give the Axis a little more reason to avoid flagrantly attacking the Allies on G1 and G2. Under the old rules, the US did not accumulate enough TUV to even want to counter-attack the Axis anywhere until at least turn 3.

Argothair

I’m going to do a series of posts on 1939 opening strategy until I either run through all five nations or people tell me they’re bored with the idea.

Thoughts on the GERMAN opening:

Germany’s biggest decision on G1 is whether to attack France right off the bat.

Attacking France on G1:

If you do decide to attack Paris on Germany’s first turn, you will need to commit about half of Berlin’s starting forces, and because north Africa will probably side for the Allies, you should also attack Algeria, which requires committing your Libyan infantry, half of the Italian forces, and your Mediterranean transport. Evacuating Libya means that your Italian fighter can’t land safely after attacking the British fleet in the eastern Med, so you are probably better off consolidating your Mediterranean and South Atlantic fleets off the west coast of Spain, and using air power to sink the Russian cruiser and transport in the Black Sea and to sink the British fleet in the English Channel.

With your leftover resources, you can grab Norway OR Leningrad in the north and Southern Europe OR Ukraine in the south. If you win all your battles, that’ll leave you with a solid 28 IPC. Don’t get too greedy about gobbling up your neighbors on G1 – you want to be able to hold France against a counter-attack from the Canadian transport, and your Romanian IC is surprisingly fragile if you use all of its troops on the attack.

The Northern Attack

If you don’t want to attack Paris on G1, you need to find another way to make up the income. One option is to tilt hard to the north, taking Norway, the Baltic States, Poland, and Leningrad, for a G2 income of 25 IPC. Your Italian tank can hit Poland with help from the artillery in Romania, leaving your planes free to help your Finnish infantry hit Norway. Norway has neither an AA gun nor a fighter, so you don’t have to be as concerned about providing fodder – 2 infantry is probably enough. That leaves you with four ground units, planes, and shore bombardment to take Karelia. You also have 2 inf, 1 art in Italy that aren’t being used – you can use them to set up for a G2 attack on France, to reinforce Libya, or to trade for Egypt, but the best use is probably to invade Southern Europe, getting ready for a very early Barbarossa. You can actually use your Mediterranean transport to evacuate Libya, sending the troops to assist in conquering Southern Europe. Your Ethiopian ground troops can invade Rhodesia, forcing Britain to waste IPCs activating the South African factory, while your Ethiopian fighter flies north to help take out the British fleet in the eastern Med and then lands in Italy.

For obvious reasons, the northern attack lends itself well to an early assault against Russia – if you build a second Baltic transport on G1, you should be able to hold Leningrad by G2, and if you evacuate Africa on G1, then you should be able to take Stalingrad on G3 and hold it on G4. If you use this strategy, the Japanese should seriously consider attacking the 4 inf Buryatia stack on J1 to further stress Russia’s thin starting forces. You might wind up never invading France or NW Europe – just leave the neutral troops as a buffer to help protect your western flank while you drive hard for Moscow.

Attacking the Suez Canal on G1:

Another option is to crush the eastern Med right off the bat. You can actually take Egypt without using the transport. If you’re willing to sacrifice a fighter, you can get 75% odds in Egypt by attacking with just the 2 Libyan inf plus 1 Italian fighter and 1 German bomber. You can then attack the British fleet with your Med BB and DD, plus your Ethiopian fighter, which, surprisingly, gives you 93% odds to get the transport through to Trans-Jordan. In Trans-Jordan itself, you have 81% odds if you bring 1 inf, 1 tnk from Italy and your second German bomber. Your Ethiopian ground forces can pick off the 1 inf in Rhodesia, further splitting and reducing the British forces in Africa. You can then finish up by attacking Southern Europe directly from Germany and downing the Russian Black Sea Fleet with your German fighters. Alternatively, you can leave the Black Sea fleet intact, build a carrier in the Med (which gets reinforced by your Moroccan sub), and use the German fighters in the Med campaign, landing them on the carrier after they attack the British fleet, which frees up your Ethiopian fighter to assist in Egypt. If you’re feeling gutsy, you can also pick off the Baltic States, although you’re not likely to be able to hold it against the Russian counter-attack. This opening limits your income on G2 to at most 25 IPC, but it puts the British in an extremely awkward position. With Morocco, Algeria, French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa, Madagascar, and Persia still neutral, and Libya, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Rhodesia, Italian East Africa in German hands, Britain is left trying to hold onto Africa with nothing but Sudan and South Africa – a total of 3 inf, 1 art defending the whole continent. The Western Allies can’t ship in reinforcements from the Atlantic without attacking neutral France and risking the whole French Empire siding for the Axis. If you coordinate this attack with an early Japanese assault on India, Germany may be able to overwhelm even the (damaged) British factory in South Africa.

Frederick II

I have a quick question why is Russia at war when they weren’t in 1939?

1939 Scenario for the 1942.2 Map and Pieces

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Balancing AAZ 1942

[Global 1940] New Map

G40.2 new powers

Redesign 1941 Setup on v5 1942.2 San Francisco Experiment

Should Axis and Allies be reduced to 2 turns?

+2 movement for airbases

What would you do with this map?

A&A Revised Scenarios

46

18.0k

40.8k

1.8m